Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:do you want $100+ oil changes at the dealer shi (Score 1) 215

Anyone that owns a performance car has been paying $100 oil changes at even a quickie lube for a while now. MY dealer oil changes are $160.00 If I buy the oil and filter myself it comes out to be $65.00 to do it in the driveway.

I'm guessing that you have not owned a car and taken it in for an oil change cince 1980? Even my Honda Civic was $70 for an oil change just yesterday at a Valvoline quick lube.

Comment Re:During the 70's or 80's... (Score 2) 215

Except you cant use Microsoft WORD to write anything that says anything negative about Microsoft.... it's in the EULA.
Oh and they own your docx files because it is in their format.
Oh and you had better read the EULA of their Visual Studio as to what they own of yours.....

Nothing has changed except that they hide it better in a wall of text written by the scummiest people on the planet. Intellectual Property Lawyers.

Comment Re:Terrible Idea (Score 1) 215

Ebay always sides with the buyer, open the case and ebay will simply refund the money paid if returning the item is too difficult. in international cases from china ebay wil even say, "here is your money, keep the item" because if the auction is marked "no returns" that means that the seller does not want it back for any reason at all even damaged so the buyer can get a refund and keep the item.

If he did not open a case with ebay then he is either very stupid or just started using ebay.

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 1) 511

> Libertarian isn't just economic freedom
I know it's not supposed to be. But the reality is -that this is what it is. I've never seen a libertarian willing to sacrifice a tiny bit of economic freedom to secure greater civil liberties. If libertarianism was really about more than economics - then that trade-off would be an absolute no-brainer.

>Pinochet was a military dictator who ruled with an iron fist
But it was limited government - the government basically consisted of defense and police - the only things that libertarians think it should be.

> Learn your political science.
Learn to distinguish theory from practice. It's impossible to GET libertarian economics WITHOUT a dictator. That's exactly what Thatcher told Hayek, it's what libertarians constantly discover. Because if you give people power over the government - they always end up demanding the government help the homeless because they are sick and tired of all the people down-on-their-luck crapping on their porch. There is a reason rural people tend to be conservative and urban people tend to be liberal. It's because urban people deal with problems that only happen when you have millions of people in the same city - problems that can really only be solved by liberal ideas because thats the only set of ideals that even considers them. Libertarianism - as the far end of conservative thought keeps running into the problem that the vast majority of people are urban -to get them to accept a politics that ignores most of the day-to-day things they have to deal with - you have to force it on them, because they'll never voluntarily do so. When you're rural living, the government has neither much need nor ability to affect your life. The nearest government services are usually so far away that relying on them is insane. But when you live in a city, with so many people close together - that kind of self-reliance is utterly impossible. You HAVE to be interdependent to make the whole damn thing have any chance of working. Government is merely the means by which you, as a group, deal with those things that cannot be efficiently done by private individuals. Government becomes a vital aspect of your very ability to survive. If government wasn't running the sewage system - every cholera infection would be an outbreak that kills millions of people. You can't trust private industry to do it either because private industry wants to make a profit but your OWN safety depends on EVERYBODY - even those with NO money who CANNOT buy the service having ACCESS to the service. Libertarianism and conservative thought simply doesn't WORK in a city.

Comment Re:And what are the other terms? (Score 4, Interesting) 205

Indeed, he is flagrantly biassed. He was the head of the New Horizon's project - which just sent us a huge amount of data to study on Pluto. Studies which cost money, and having Pluto not deemed a planet anymore has, he says, made it harder to drum up funding for that research.

The answer of course is: because everything in our solar system should be studied - not just planets. One of the greatest achievements in recent astronomy has been landing a probe on a comet, because it taught us a great deal about comets (things we couldn't learn from the remnants that sometimes fall on earth). Studying mars is cool - but we SHOULD be putting probes on Eris as well.

Good probes to Titan, Europa and Ganymede are important studies to undertake in the near future - they are among the highest likelihood cases for life elsewhere in the solar system. Europan bacteria would be a fantastic discovery - Europan 'fish' an unlikely but amazing bonus - but we will never know if we don't go look.

If anything looking at planets is near the bottom of the priority list. Most of the planets are gas giants - there's only so much you can learn from something you can't land on.

Comment Re:And what are the other terms? (Score 1) 205

That's no egg... it's a testicle !

You're not an egghead, you're a testicle head. And frankly for somebody who seems to think the primary purpose of science is building instruments of death (as opposed to the reality where that is a major perversion of science) - that's the kindest and most euphemistically polite term I can think of.

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 3, Informative) 511

The numbers come from a 2006 article about the 1970's protests against Friedman at his own University - which I had used as a reference to prove the no-platforming is decidedly NOT an millennial invention - the boomers started it (and while I defend no-platforming as BEING rather than attacking free speech, the boomers probably didn't qualify in the same way because they crossed a line millennials have generally refused to go near in protesting to demand the firing of a tenured professor - there's a huge difference between being selective of what outside speakers you want to welcome on campus outside of class, and protesting which TEACHERS are allowed to teach there).

Either way, the numbers on Chile were largely mentioned in passing, as the article was mostly focussed on the role of Friedman and Hayek - and their subsequent influence on the Reagan and Thatcher administrations (it was so funny to see a libertarian declare Reagan an evil that libertarians fought against... when the REASON they fought him was not being libertarian enough after missing my original point: it's impossible for any non-dictator to actually DO all the libertarians want, it cannot be done because in a democracy you can never convince THAT MANY people to sacrifice themselves on the altars of the moneyed gods). Reagan got protested by libertarians because of what checks and balances PREVENTED him from doing.

Anyway, it's quite possible I misread a number, or just remembered one wrong, or the article could have had a typo. As I said my reading of it was for a different purpose and the focus of the article itself was on a different aspect of that history. So I'm happy to concede I may have had that number wrong.
That the Chilean economic 'miracle' never happened however is beyond dispute. It looked great on paper but it never represented any actual growth.
You can contrast that with the Argentinian miracle - arguably the greatest vindication of anarcho-socialist philosophy since the Andalusia. The economy collapsed and the capitalists fled with their cash. Then the workers just showed up and kept running the abandoned businesses as democratic coops... and in the same economic conditions where the capitalists had given up and fled while they still had money... these coops thrived, their profit-sharing meant everybody was also earning more - so they could buy things, which meant the success of every coop guaranteed the success of the others by providing a steady supply of customers who could afford to buy the goods they made. Today these coops provide over 80% of Argentinian employment with the remainder being mostly civil servants and a small number working for overseas companies that have since returned. On paper, Argentina's economy is in dire straits - in PRACTICE it's one of the most successful in the world. The elites aren't making money, the usual measurements are showing terrible declines as a result - but the PEOPLE are living the highest quality of life in their history and funding it with genuine productivity. The exact opposite of how Chile ended up. And thus, very unlikely to experience a similar crash (it's been going on ten years now and no dangerous crash-like signs are showing).
What's interesting is that this form of workers-own-the-means-of-production socialism happened with no statism, no state involvement in fact, and no violence or revolution either. Which probably explains why the outcome has been so positive -since the things that destroyed Soviet-style communism (the authoritarian all-powerful state) was absent from the equation and it retained the best aspects of the free market. These independent businesses still compete with each other in an open market, it's just that in the successful ones the profit actually goes to the people who created it.

Slashdot Top Deals

If they can make penicillin out of moldy bread, they can sure make something out of you. -- Muhammad Ali