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:Costlier lobbying is a good thing. (Score 1) 52

"When it comes to policy decisions, it will do the right thing, and lobbying won't have any real impact."

Yeah, this is the part people seriously doubt.

When lobbying is no longer effective, you have moved into far darker territory, where now, there is only 3 manners of decision making: Nepotism, whims, and ideological bent of the person in charge.

Dictatorships are also relatively immune to lobbying. Do we really want to end up there? Lobbying is bad, limiting access to your government is worse, since now it is completely clear the government will do whatever it wants, consequences be dammed.

Comment Re:Some people (Score 1) 260

In which case, the first private party that believes that have a large enough private force will subjugate you. As has been the case for almost the entirety of human history. If you want a productive economy you must delegate legal force to a singular party, otherwise it becomes might makes right. The biggest source of conflict is people picking fights they THINK they can win. If you dissuade them from using force at all, then everyone wins.

Comment Re:Just repeal it (Score 1) 566

I'm fine with that, as long as those same Americans are denied health care at all times until they can pay, even at the ER. Until you do that, when they DO get sick (not if), I don't want to pay the astronomical price they can't afford (because they don't have insurance), when they have to take the far more expensive option at the ER (because they never thought they would need the insurance or didn't have it to go do basic preventative care).

Comment Re:How many... (Score 1) 95

In terms of practical use, the information density means it is excellent for archival purposes. Consider how much space is used to store backups offline (tape or otherwise). I'm thinking things like Amazon S3 Glacier. Now, I didn't read the article, but I'm going to assume it is a bit easier to store these vials then racks upon racks worth of hard drives or tapes. Also consider the cost of moving this stuff, its smaller, simpler, and lighter, which means cheaper in many ways.

Furthermore, unless I'm hugely mistaken, this will survive an EMP with no ill effect, so that's an added bonus in terms of resiliency.

Comment Re:wars destroy wealth (Score 4, Insightful) 516

He uses the extra income to bribe the government. Regardless of how many regulations or how few, if the local judge is bought off, I'm screwed. Also my rich neighbor will pay far market rates for hitmen or lawyers to make me disappear if I oppose them, either physically or financially.

Comment Re:Surprising (Score 4, Insightful) 243

"If Iowa wants to sell you food or if you want to eat?"

There is a reason agriculture is at the bottom of the economic food chain. I can choose to buy my food elsewhere, it will be just more expensive. Iowa being unable to sell its food, will have basically nothing.

This is a common argument against urban america "You urbanites need our food!". The reality is, no they don't, but the rural areas surely need the technology, transportation, trade and manufacturing. The real world examples of this in action is Hong Kong and Singapore, neither of which can produce food on any scale, yet have no issues with feeding their populaces.

There is a reason the US and most of the developed world has steadily urbanized. In more recent history, see the mass migrations from eastern China to the coasts.

Comment Re:Down with Putin - Down with Trump (Score 1) 278

I would note that is also a product of demographics. If all the Democrats moved to the primary urban/metro areas in the US, then by default they forfeit control over 30 states, since the aformentioned metro areas are in a grand total of 10, maybe 15 states.

Consider how many states have less then 5 representatives. Nearly all of them that are not near another states metro area, went for the Republican Party (so in general they are large area, with minimal population).

Also consider the reality that the House of Representatives is now a tyranny of the minority (ironically).

First past the post also punishes Democrats moving to urban areas, since they increase an advantage that counts for nothing. The more wealth urban areas get (urbanization tends to do that), the less their political power they have, relatively.

In the end, the Republican party will probably end up having a strong lock on government, but the Democrat urban areas will dictate via economics to everyone else anyhow (California, New York and Texas routinely set standards that business follow and apply uniformly since it would cost too much to make different versions for the minority part of the economy, main one I'm familiar with is textbooks, but California environmental rules often come into play too).

Comment Re:such a wonder to mankind (Score 1) 158

Well, it did help redesign Google datacenter cooling, and save Google a bunch of money (along with being more environmentally friendly by reducing the overall power usage). Seems like a pretty good application. Nothing beats lowering CO2 emissions by simply not using power altogether.

Comment Re: Better be ready to be beat up when layed off w (Score 1) 541

So what do you do with the increasing segment of the population who have nothing to trade (your Person C)? If you don't subsidize them, they either steal to survive or revolt. In either case, they will take by force whatever is needed to survive, so cheaper to subsidize then the alternatives (warfare or mass murder).

Comment Re:Nope (Score 3) 468

And what happens when one no longer needs humans to do the work since they provide so little value? The usual solution is is to gain more skills, but that is increasingly difficult since most peoples costs have a pretty hard floor (housing, food, transportation), and acquiring skills usually requires one to gain such skills independently, as employer refuse to train, or provide much in the way of assistance of increasing the workers skill (why would they, just hire someone else, or automate the person away entirely). Its becoming a catch-22: To increase your financial resources, you must acquire new skills, which require financial or time resource to gain, which you didn't have to start with, hence wanting to increase them to begin with.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Working...