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


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:Bull twaddle, Seattle is best (Score 1) 176

Google and Microsoft are steering clear of the city proper in order to attract talent, because people at those skill levels want a life after working hours. And the night life in Seattle isn't that nice either. The two major issues that were raised about life in the city were housing costs and too many homeless people. So enjoy getting grabbed riding your bicycle by one of the hobo camps in the evening.

Um, wrong. It's in city limits. It IS the city proper.

Don't try to tell me about Seattle - the suburbs in other cities have more homeless people per capita, actually.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 295

I think there's an argument to be made that corporate interests saying "We shouldn't pay any taxes" is sufficiently self-serving that if it were to be carried out, there should be replacement of government revenue. I'd happily tax any executive on all remunerations at a massive rate of tax, if not at $500,000, then I'd say any remuneration as well as capital gains and the like. Quite frankly, the idea that a corporate "person" somehow gets to evade the taxes that a real "person" has to pay to me suggests that the notion of corporate personhood should be completely eliminated should corporations no longer have to pay taxes, and that shareholders should now be witness to fiduciary risks as parties to criminal acts.

Either that or corporations pay their fucking taxes and quit having their proxies go around trying to argue away their obligations to the wider society. That's exactly how I'd frame it, "Don't want to pay taxes, your shareholders will no longer have the protections of limited liability", because what's really being argued here is a "having their cake and eating it too" proposition.

Comment Bull twaddle, Seattle is best (Score 1) 176

Look, it's only our suburbs where people drive 2-3 hours some days. If you actually LIVE in Seattle near where you work, your bike commute is maybe 15 minutes and you can walk that in 30 minutes. I do it all the time. If it's raining I hop on a bus and it's 30 minutes.

Only suckers drive in Seattle.

And as for Rent, only suckers pay rent in Seattle. You can buy a 2 bedroom no garage townhouse in Fremont (in Seattle) for like $250k. Your mortgage will be half what rent would be. I pay way less for my mortgage than my friends who rent.


Comment Re:Thanks, I'll pass on all of them (Score 1) 176

Yep. I moved to Idaho and can relate. I grew up in Silly Con Valley and will never go back. I won't even visit I hate that place so much. I earn more here, I have a cost of living thats 60% less than it was there and the people are chill. My commute is about 26 minutes though but thats by choice as I chose to move further out of town than most.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 295

Fine, a massive capital gains tax on dividends, on resource extraction licenses, and a massive tax on any income over $500,000, including any "interest-free loans", shares, and any other financial instrument. If you think taxing corporations is bad, then tax the living fuck out of those that are making the money. Oh, and repeal all corporate personhood. All shareholders will be liable for the misdeeds of the corporation, up to and including imprisonment for death and injury a corporation causes, and seizure of shareholders' assets in the case of insolvency or financial penalty beyond current cash and asset reserves.

Is that what you meant?

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 295

There are a few Roman Emperors that assumed the Army would save them. It's pretty much been a universal truth for a few thousand years that it isn't the popular revolts that lead to a government's fall, it's what the army decides to do that counts. If the generals still feel the regime is worth saving, they'll back it. If the generals are noncommittal or want the government to fall, but want to play no overt role, then the soldiers stay in their barracks. Sometimes, the army, or enough of it, will join the revolution, and then it's all over. But very rarely, particularly since the invention of heavy artillery, does a popular revolt get very far on its own.

Submission + - Google+ and the Notifications Meltdown (vortex.com)

Lauren Weinstein writes: I’ve been getting emails recently from correspondents complaining that I have not responded to their comments/postings on Google+. I’ve just figured out why.

The new (Google unified) Google+ desktop notification panel is losing G+ notifications left and right. For a while I thought that all of the extra notifications I was seeing when I checked on mobile occasionally were dupes — but it turns out that most of them are notifications that were never presented to me on desktop, in vast numbers.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 4, Insightful) 295

Sooner or later a universal income is going to become a real thing, and yes, it's going to be funded by taxing the robots, or more likely the commercial entities that employ the robots. We'll hear lots of corporate-funded interests crying up a storm, and for a time they may even stave it off, but it's going to happen sooner or later, because the alternative is an essentially unfed underclass which will lead to massive social disorder. Besides, the companies that produce goods still need people to buy them, so in the end it only makes sense to make sure that people have some basic level of income to be able to fuel some sort of consumer economy.

Comment Re:It's just smart business. (Score 5, Insightful) 295

Well, the reason this is about Trump is because he has created what is clearly a set of unachievable expectations. Health care is only the first of many failures; where his flights of rhetorical fancy hit cold hard reality. When it comes to manufacturing, even a repatriation of manufacturing capacity is simply not going to deliver the expected significant uptick in employment. In fact, I'd go further as to argue that with increased automation, it makes less sense to locate manufacturing thousands of miles over an ocean from the market, and I imagine what will eventually happen is a good deal of manufacturing happening closer to major markets to bring down distribution costs, but you're not really going to see any significant increase in jobs.

Trump promised a lot of uneasy Rust Belters that the the good times would return, that China and Mexico would be forced to hand back all those jobs, when in fact the only reason many of the jobs ended up in places like China and Mexico was simply due to costs, and as automation increases, not even the lower wages in these countries will be enough to keep manufacturing there. In five or ten years, you'll see a lot of angry and frightened workers in the rust belts of India, China, Mexico and other countries who had been able to supply cheap labor.

Slashdot Top Deals

The first myth of management is that it exists. The second myth of management is that success equals skill. -- Robert Heller