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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: While its not my cup of tea (Score 1) 527

"Those circumstances" were that he had never taken administrative or personal action against anyone under his managerial authority while working at Mozilla, but people didn't like his personal opinions. It seems like the problem is on somebody else's end, but the fact that everyone else is an insecure asshole doesn't matter in the real world.

People can be offended by donations of $1,000 to advancing the legalization of same-sex marriage. Should they press for resignation of CEOs who support same-sex marriage because they don't like them, or would that be wrong?

Comment Re: While its not my cup of tea (Score 1) 527

Not liking gays and being hostile in the workplace are two different things. There are a lot of people I don't like for the simple fact that they disturb me; I deal with that by avoiding them. Since I have no administrative power over them, that doesn't do them any harm; if I did, well, I'd have to deal with them when necessary, and otherwise avoid them. So maybe I'm not going to hang out with you at the bar after work, but I'm not going to pass you up on a raise, a promotion, or an important project because you're weird and make me direly uncomfortable.

Some people are actually mature. They're allowed to work in their own interests.

Comment Re:What will happen to humans? (Score 1) 174

Basically, everyone is misinterpreting this paper.

The conclusion was robots displace jobs in the local region. It's like factories in Detroit shutting down because we've automated manufacturing, meanwhile Seattle, Silicon Valley, and the East Coast tech industry start growing.

Technical progress reduces the cost of goods and services, which reduces the minimum price. When the minimum price falls lower, more people can access those things, broadening the market and allowing for more competition; this effect tapers off as markets become large (because the things are cheap and common goods), and instead cost reductions just directly control (reduce) prices because any new guy on the block can jump in and take a chunk of the market by selling it cheaper--and the existing players can try to take away from competitors in the same way. Do note that "reducing" prices can be done by increasing them more slowly than progress; the monetary policy discussion is really long and complicated, and the short version is to think of price in terms of hours of wage paid instead of in terms of currency.

Here's the thing: what happens if cars get cheaper?

Well, cars could get cheaper by replacing Detroit workers with machines. If those workers's wages and benefits are 20% of the cost of the car, then replacing 90% of them cuts the cost of the car by 18%. What happens?

Everyone who buys cars from Detroit now pays 18% less for the same car--or buys a fancier car for the same price--roughly 80% of which goes to the other 80% of the production chain. In either case, you end up with many fewer people working at car factories in Detroit.

Since some of that money either goes unspent or goes to the car maker's suppliers, it's going somewhere other than Detroit. If it goes unspent, then car buyers can now buy local services, such as more food out of home (a continuing trend in the past few decades). They can import something else--iPhones, Spotify (which isn't run in Detroit, but is American), or some other thing. Even if they import a Chinese good, that good must be shipped and retailed in America, which means jobs are created across the country--not in Detroit.

Your population keeps growing; ratio of number-of-employed to size-of-labor-force (everyone 16 and older who isn't retired--this isn't unemployment, but rather is an employment number that ignores labor force participation) continues to hover around the same stable span; and people who lost their job in one place remain unemployed while people the next city or state over get shiny new jobs.

It's not that everyone gets jobs buliding the robots--that wouldn't make sense. It's that it takes half as many people to both build the robots and operate the robots; we build twice as many robots, make twice as much stuff, and most people are now robot operators. Thing is most of the robot operators aren't the same people whose jobs were replaced by a robot and a smaller workforce; a new market appears somewhere else.

Comment Re:SJW purges in full swing now (Score 1) 527

If he's a Gorean, then he's a misogynistic asshole. It's assholes all the way down.

Sure. Is he a Gorean? He role-plays one among people who share the fantasy. I have my own sexual fantasies, and while they don't include Gor some of them are against the values I hold and practice, and do not show in my daily life. To give one example, I have fantasies involving sex with people other than my wife, but that doesn't mean I hit on other women or would think seriously about going too far with them.

If the guy acts like a misogynist asshole in his daily life, that's one thing. If he acts like a misogynist asshole in a safe environment with people who are cooperating willingly, that's none of my business.

Comment Re:Robots, robots everywhere! (Score 1) 174

Your ignorance blinds you. The fact is damn near every fucking example you've brought forth here is at risk within the next 15 - 20 years.

Think about that before you rant again, because much like the rest of society, you have no solution for it.

Solution for what? What is the problem?

The coming wave of automation is going to create an unparalleled era of abundance. The reason many jobs will disappear is because there will be no need for humans to labor. This isn't a problem, this is awesome!

We do have to figure out a way to transition from our current scarcity-based economic structure, with incentives that are focused on making sure as many people as possible work, to a post-scarcity economy that has no need of such stark and powerful labor incentives (e.g. work or starve). My guess is that this will take the form of a universal basic income, paid for by taxing the owners of the capital infrastructure (i.e. the robots) that do all of the production. But because automation will dramatically lower the cost of goods and services, this should be easy to do. The only real obstacles are getting everyone to understand the need to make the transition, and handling the timing so that the need to work is phased out in step with the reduced demand for work.

Comment Re: Crazy (Score 1) 527

Men are primarily responsible for the world's ills, to be honest, because they generally have more power.

The women I know who call themselves feminists do not believe women are superior to men. They believe that the two sexes are equal. My wife registered for the draft, and was rejected.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 174

yes, it's going to be funded by taxing the robots, or more likely the commercial entities that employ the robot

That's a bad idea. Corporations never actually pay taxes, they pass the cost to employees, suppliers, customers and investors, in some mix that seems good to them. What you really want to tax is the owners of the capital, the investors. Not only do they not have an easy way to shift the cost onto someone else, they also have a much more difficult time shopping tax jurisdictions to get the best deal... because that requires them to actually live in those other jurisdictions. Well, okay, so the super rich can probably skate around that a little bit by living officially in one place while actually spending their time in others, but not as easily as corporations can, and the super rich don't own the bulk of the capital. Most of it is owned by the upper middle class and lower upper class, largely in their retirement savings accounts.

Taxing people, rather than corporations, allows lawmakers to target the taxes where they want them, rather than letting the corporations figure out who to pass it to. Because at the end of the day it will always be people who pay them anyway.

Comment Re:Shipping (Score 0) 174

Don't think I'm missing your point, because I'm not. I agree with everything you said, I'm just going to go off on a tangent based on your mention of Sears...

Sears has internal problems, certainly - but in large part it is doomed no matter how well run due to past strategic decisions. Back when their main business was mail order, they insisted on publishing their huge tome and sending it to every home in the USA at considerable expense. Meanwhile, specialty catalogs like LL Bean were eating their lunch. Sears had the largest database about the buying habits of US consumers in existence, and yet instead of using that to their advantage to send out more frequent, seasonal, targeted specialty catalogs they stubbornly plowed ahead with the massive yearly tome. In addition, they built a huge, expensive retail presence in the emerging mall phenomenon, a trend which has since evaporated. This has left them with little mail-order (now internet) presence and a bunch of noncompetitive white elephants at now-empty malls. The entire corporation could function as single, well-oiled machine and it would still fail at this point.

Comment Re:While its not my cup of tea (Score 1) 527

I'd say the difference is whether you extend your kink to the rest of the world. If you spend your free time with women who want to be treated like a Gorean slave girl and treat them accordingly, keeping everything fully consensual, that's one thing. If you act like an asshole and misogynist in real life, that's another thing. All I've read of this guy is that he practices certain sexual fantasies that some people would find offensive in real life, and I fail to see what he does in private with people who willingly go along with it is any of my business.

Comment Re: While its not my cup of tea (Score 1) 527

The CEO in question resigned. Last I looked, nobody not directly involved knew how voluntary the resignation was. He had donated a large sum of money to preventing the legalization of same-sex marriage. It wasn't clear to me that he could function well as Mozilla CEO under those circumstances.

Comment It doesn't take 7 billion people (Score 3, Interesting) 174

It will be a harsh, bloody, social uprising, perhaps even resulting in the destruction of the human race, when we finally realize the consequence of our extreme "productivity" as a species.

To put it simply, it doesn't take 7 billion people to house, clothe, feed, and entertain 7 billion people. So... now what?

The patrons of exploration aren't spending what we need to in order to open up new frontiers, and Capitalism/Imperialism need frontiers to be successful. Since there is not new territory, the new frontier is efficiency/productivity, which isolates capitalism from the labor force more and more.

We need lots of people to die, or we need a different understanding of a human's worth other than what they can produce. I love productivity and automation, but unless it is accompanied by social change, it will be the death of a whole lot of people.

Slashdot Top Deals

UFOs are for real: the Air Force doesn't exist.