Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:So give us your tax money (Score 1) 124

You want to waste money on all that?

What, do they write treaties on gold-pressed latinum now?

Compare costs of a typical treaty negotiation meeting to a just a single strike of ~50 Tomahawk cruise missiles at ~$325M each.

Diplomacy is ^always^ the cheaper option.

Now compare that same ballpark figure of the costs of negotiating a new treaty to the cost of effectively being cut out of the economic, technical, and scientific benefits of space exploration/exploitation.

Diplomacy is far and away the better option.

Strat

Comment Re:So give us your tax money (Score 1) 124

The treaty is required especially on the basis of preventing nuclear weapons use in space.

No.

*A* treaty is required, *this* one can be replaced/renegotiated. Isn't that what civilized nations do when circumstances change, renegotiate or replace a dated treaty with a new, more comprehensive one that accounts for current realities?

Strat

Comment the moral of the story is: don't hire Americans (Score -1) 126

The moral of the story is clear: don't hire Americans, don't hire anybody in the West. They actually believe they are owed a job by a business, that's very interesting but also not something a business wants to deal with.

By the way, discrimination is a human right. You don't lose your right to discriminate just because you run a business, but the way the Western laws are structured: you DO lose your right to discriminate and then you can be a target for various lawsuits based on this oppression of the individual rights by the collectivist system.

So make sure not to hire in the countries that have these types of oppressive regimes and laws in place.

Comment Re:The correct course of action (Score 1) 195

but there's clearly a necessity that those services be provided in some form or function, and the 538 members of Congress are clearly not up to the task of managing all of that on their own, especially once you consider that most of those agencies are far larger than Congress itself.

That's precisely the point; those who wrote the Constitution and those today who believe similarly do not believe many of those things are the job of the federal government, and for those things which are, Congress should be the only body in government with the power to pass laws, as they are elected which gives the people some direct way to keep them accountable and not appointed/hired. This delegation of powers is a large part of how the government has gone about expanding it's powers and scope.

The other problem is reinterpretation and redefining words and meanings of the Constitution to achieve political/ideological goals rather than using the means provided in the document to alter it. Maybe there's some civil right like the 2nd Amendment you disagree with (not accusing, I don't know nor care, this is just for discussion) and maybe this achieves your short-term goal(s), but it weakens all the other civil rights most people, including yourself, value, and renders them vulnerable to the same methods and strategies to effectively nullify/rewrite/abolish them. A case of "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!" for those

Strat

Comment Re:The correct course of action (Score 0) 195

... they've said that it is the FCC's job to make those decisions.

If Congress can simply assign to others the power to make law, then I guess the Republican House and Senate can simply vote to give Trump the ability to make laws as he sees fit, then. Or does Congress only have that power when it's something you agree with?

Congress was never explicitly granted the power to delegate it's lawmaking authority in the Constitution, likely as it was never imagined that the Federal government would ever be allowed to grow to the size and scope that Congress could not pass enough laws alone, without a rebellion.

Strat

Comment Re:prediction... more good comments... not (Score 1) 463

tl;dr

(And here I thought that *I* got kinda long-winded in some/many? of my old posts, LOL!)

Raising minimum wage results in price inflation as the market will better tolerate higher prices when incomes go up. Do you propose nationwide government price controls on all products/services/property/etc?

Raising minimum wages also reduces the number of low-skilled and "first jobs" (whose value as an employee to a small business employer is typically already just barely enough to justify the cost of employing them), as small businesses who supply the overwhelming majority will increasingly forego hiring new employees and eventually lay off current ones if the amount is increased sufficiently. This effect is only exacerbated by the rise of relatively affordable sophisticated automation systems able to replace many low-skill jobs. Do you propose mandatory hiring quotas?

Strat

Comment Re:They already made money (Score 1) 164

they got billions (with a 'b') in subsidies while _also_ being allowed to charge extra fees to bring fiber to those poor neighborhoods. They pocketed the money and told us to go fuck ourselves.

Well, they did make sure to send plenty of that cash back to those politicians that agreed to the deal so the gravy train would keep rolling their way, so their *real* "customers" got what they wanted out of the deal. Subscribers and their wallets are the product, not the customers.

Why would the politicians screw with such a sweet deal? Especially when they can essentially repeat the same scam every decade or two or three, depending, just like regularly shearing sheep. It's the same with most public-sector unions as well. The politicians and the public sector unions decide through negotiation how much of our money they will divide up between them.

Strat

Comment Re:This is horrible (Score -1) 90

Oh, this is a wonderful comment!

Also I suggest that people who are unusually tall should be shortened at the knees because they can move unfairly faster than others and see further. People with 20/20 vision should have their sight reduced artificially by mandatory cloudy glasses to make it fair for everybody and people who are just too damn pretty should have acid splashed into their faces to make life more equitable on this planet for all.

Comment Re:Who exactly is surprised by this? (Score -1) 164

Those are not necessities. Would you defend rich people being the first to have food and water and shelter?

- of-course I would, most obviously people with more means can get food and water and shelter faster and of higher quality than others. Wealth is a way to set priorities just as well as to do a number of other things, why wouldn't the rich have first access to food, water and shelter?

Comment Re:Most of this comes from certain Net block regio (Score 1) 173

...without it being verified first.

Verified? By whom? By whose standards? Who determines the definitions used? Do citizens get to vote for these people? How far can they go, what are their powers? What kind of checks against political/ideological-weaponization will there be?

You allow anyone the power to control what you see/read/hear, you allow them the power to make you their slave. It's always the edge-cases, the socially-repugnant extremes that authoritarians use to justify removing your choices and freedoms. It's happened over and over in nearly every country that fell to authoritarianism.

Will we sit in apathy and/or join the raging throngs drunk on identity politics and allow history to repeat itself yet again at the cost of freedom stolen from both ourselves and multiple future generations, likely accompanied by obscene numbers of human lives lost? Ultimately, only we know the answer.

Strat

Comment Re: Ontario, largest subnational debtor on the pla (Score -1) 513

Wealth is an abstract concept. In nature noone owns anything

- you own your body if you can protect it. You own your territory if you can protect it. There is no difference between nature and us, we are nature.

If you don't own anything then why would you mind if I decided to kill you for food (don't worry, I am a vegetarian, but I may sell your body to others for food). So you see, your property starts with possession of your own body and mind and from there it extends to the work that you do in your life because that work takes your personal time, the time of your life.

Your work is time taken out of your life that you are spending not on pleasure but on work (maybe your work is pleasure for you but that doesn't really change anything). To take what you have worked for and to distribute it to others, who did not do this work is the injustice of oppression imposed by the collectivism that we are observing here and the more of that is happening the more people will fight against it in every possible way.

I am all for people outsourcing, automating, avoiding and evading every tax they can because that is the fight against the oppression and violence of the collectivist mob and it needs to be done.

Comment Re:Vigorous debate? Surely you jest (Score -1) 513

I've been on this site since around 1998, registered the account within a couple of years I think. As an anarcho capitalist/objectivist I don't see what it is you are seeing (this site becoming more libertarian minded, which means less Statist, less collectivist). For whatever reason the population here is quite happy to be part of a 'larger than self' collective and it's quite happy to use collectivism for protectionism, for taxation and redistribution and such. Where have you seen this shift towards 'Randian garbage' as you call it? Individuals are mostly drowned out in the overall collectivist noise here.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing makes a person more productive than the last minute.

Working...