Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Economics? (Score 1) 295

Not only that, but nuclear plants employ a large number of well paid, skilled, and educated people for that entire duration. They also pay huge amounts in local and state taxes. The contributions back to the tax base and the economy from that is worth billions more.

Billions of dollars are changing hands, but it would be incorrect to say that this brings billions of dollars' worth of benefit to the economy. There is an economic gain from voluntary trade, but it's a small fraction of what either party pays or receives in absolute terms. The gain comes from the differences between the values each party assigns to the items being exchanged (e.g. productivity vs. salary for the employer, or salary vs. time, effort, and "human capital" such as training for the worker). This difference will, of course, be considerably less than the values of the goods being exchanged. Since the trade is voluntary the exchange can be presumed to benefit both parties, but the size of this benefit is difficult to estimate. As a thought-experiment one could consider the range of prices that would be acceptable to both parties (which is, of course, unknowable in any particular instance); the net benefit to the buyer is the highest amount the buyer would have been willing to pay for the same good minus the amount actually paid; or for the seller, the amount actually received minus the least the seller would have been willing to settle for. The net economic benefit of the transaction to society as a whole is the sum of the benefits to the buyer and the seller.

The state and local taxes, on the other hand, are a straightforward involuntary transfer of existing property from one party to another and should not be counted as an economic benefit at all. If anything, the taxed party can reasonably be expected to lose more value than the government gains, for a net economic loss.

Comment Re: Advertising/Commercials Killed TV (Score 1) 194

Without commercials TV shows would have to be purchased.. this would make it more expensive. In addition, consumers will have no means to know about useful products and services. Without that, product sales will reduce. When there is less trading, there is less employment. When there is less employment few people can afford the TV shows. This will cause TV show revenue to decrease, resulting in poorer quality tv shows.
Anyway what I am saying is that I hate advertising as much as the next guy but long term suffering through a few ads may actually be beneficial to society and yourself.

Comment Re: This is dumb (Score 1) 194

That was because they were getting hammered by peer to peer file sharing services like Napster and Kazaa, eMule, and and whole bunch of others whose name I forgot. Everyone was downloading their music illegally and CD sales were plummeting. The content owners are not going to allow TV to be reinvented unless they get paid off it. Before iTunes, people were getting their music free.. now they are paying $1.25.

Miss the show ? Pay. Want to watch old TV shows from the 80s? Pay.

Why do you think Netflix is having to make original content? Content owners know that they are better off charging per viewing than selling a bunch of shows in bulk. Pretty soon we'll be subscribing to TV shows. Probably will start at $20 per season. After 10 years they will charge a time shifting fee if you don't watch it at a certain time.

Comment Content owners (Score 1) 194

Uh,content owners want to overcharge you for that. I mean, they know you are desperate to see some show so why not make some money off that? It's like buying bottled water after Katrina. We'll sort of, but without the malice.

They know you want it, so why not make some extra money off that? Why not charge you for the convenience of watching it later?
The only reason VCR is allowed is because the Supreme Court forced it on the TV networks.

Comment Re: self-driving or assisted driving ? (Score 1) 185

Because now it's a matter of refining the software. Anyway, if it turns out they need a fancier radar or something I am sure they can swap one in. It's mostly well known what hardware and computing power is needed for self driving. We know how much CPU power is needed to render the 3D graphics of Avatar 2 but that doesn't mean the movie is completed. And like I said if someone invents a way to make it better then let the next generation cars have it.

Comment Re: self-driving or assisted driving ? (Score 1) 185

It doesn't need lane markings if it can has a good 3D representation of what's around it. If a human can do it, a car can do it better because it will have far more deep imaging, radars, GPS based spatial awareness, cameras etc to lean on. If the conditions are dangerous for a human. A human shouldn't be driving in it either.

Comment Re:Bribe? (Score 1) 120

Why not both ?

As an aside, can you imagine the unholy shitstorm that would be making the rounds if any of this were happening to Apple ?

Exploding iPhones... The internet might not cope with that, and then Apple bribing people to keep quiet about the whole thing ? We might have a singularity event...

Comment Re:UBI is a one way street (Score 1) 883

Oh, yeah, and we need to pry the wealth from the 1% to .0001% who truly contribute nothing concrete.

This is just an example of failing to value that which you do not understand. Go ahead, seize all those accumulated savings and capital investments and redistribute them for the sake of a few months' worth of short-term consumption among those who have no idea how to save or plan for the future. See what happens afterward. Hint: More money in circulation plus diminished productive capacity equals higher prices everywhere.

Putting more cash in circulation isn't going to help anyone in terms of actual available goods, and redistributing capital from those with a demonstrated ability to put it to profitable use to those who manifestly do not is hardly a recipe for making more efficient use of said capital to produce the goods the masses desire.

Comment Re: "Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score 1) 615

I don't believe anyone who is xenophobic isn't racist. Only racists can be xenophobic. If you aren't racist why would you hate fear and hate foreigners? And btw, to make things worse, Trump believes in killing innocent relatives of terrorists as a form of deterrence and revenge. He also believes in extreme torture (while claiming to be a strong Christian), how the hell can anyone support such a candidate?

Slashdot Top Deals

I've looked at the listing, and it's right! -- Joel Halpern