Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:I don't even like Uber but (Score -1) 583

If they're willing to let people work full time then they should be willing to pay full time wages

- what the hell is a 'full time wage'? I can come up with jobs all the time. As Louis Black said: I could hire a twenty year old model looking woman to wash my balls for me all the time. I am walking and she is scrubbing, nothing sexual (supposedly). It could be a 16 hour a day job for her, why not? However I am not able to hire anybody for that job at the price that I am willing to pay for it (let's say I would pay 1 dollar an hour for that service). No 20 y.o. model looking woman would take the job and that's how the market works: both sides need to agree, it takes 2 to tango (and 2 to wash balls, one with balls and one with hands).

If nobody takes that job that's the solution that you are looking for:

If someone's working 40 hours per week then they shouldn't be sleeping in their car out of exhaustion because they're struggling to pay their bills. Nobody who works full time should live in poverty.

- you are saying nobody should be..... OK, that's what you say. However if somebody wants to do the job of washing my balls and they know that the job pays $1 an hour, you would say: it should be illegal for me to offer the job but more importantly for the other person to take the job.

So I can live without that constant ball washing, however for somebody that could be just what they need for X number of reasons, you are not making my life that much worse, you are standing in the way of the people who are interested/willing/need that job from getting it.

Comment Re:Fairness has a role (Score -1) 279

Government laws cause the drugs to be that expensive in the first place. There shouldn't be such a thing as government ran FDA. A rating agency can exist without a government involvement. But of course I am 100% on board that there shouldn't be any copyright or patent laws in the first place. Let the authors protect their own rights without any artificial government created and protected monopoly.

I say drug companies need to rely on trade secrets if they want that monopoly, not on any dorm of government intervention. As to prices being 'unfair', that is a load of crock in the free market. Unfortunately we don't have a free market especially where it comes to the drugs, we gave government oppression instead.

If I invent a cure for cancer or HIV or anything serious, I would only sell it as a treatment in a protected facility, so that the information in it would stay private for as long as I can keep it. The price would be whatever I say and if a government comes for it I would much rather see it destroyed, wiped out rather than sine collectivist government violate my private property rights.

Comment Re:Perhaps globalism might be in fear for once. (Score -1) 1544

I expect to there be less government under Trump, I may be wrong though. I expect reduction in government interference to the individuals (and when I say individuals I do mean people who are mostly abused by the power, those who have something to take away from, thus businesses and yes businesses are people.) That's the only thing that matters, one thing, the only thing, the singularity of things: less government interference.

Comment F(U) ^ 2 (Score -1) 27

Fabric is "a modular mobile platform" designed to help app developers improve the "stability, distribution, revenue and identity"

- what would Twitter know about improving revenue exactly? If they do know something about it how come they didn't do that for themselves?

the ability to natively embed tweets in other apps to signing in with your Twitter credentials were made possible by Fabric.

- I guess that's their definition of 'everything'.

You can sign in and you can tweet. The 2 things that Tweeter does.

"We quickly realized that our missions are the same -- helping mobile teams build better apps, understand their users, and grow their businesses," the Fabric team wrote in its announcement.

- right, the actual mission being tracking everything anybody does on their phone and using the phone platform to push advertising to users.

"Fabric and Firebase operate mobile platforms with unique strengths in the market today."

- the F U squared.

And if you're an existing Fabric customer, don't worry, the platform will continue to function.

- ooookaaaay, I guess if you are known for randomly shutting down projects you have to put out statements like that...

You'll just need to agree to the new terms of service, which will be available once the deal is completed.

- right, so if you are a developer who uses that stuff make sure to grow an extra kidney, because they are coming for yours.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score -1) 797

If i see somebody who looks like a female to me and I don't know anything else about that pwrson I will refer to that person as a she. If I see somebody who looks like a male and I don't know anything else about that person, that to me is a he.

A biological famous male I will refer to as a he regardless of what he wants or believes to be, that is just a fact. I an not forcing him to talk to me, I am not interested in talking to him, this is my right to thinkbas I do and I am not hurting anybody by it. Manning is a he to me regardless if anything else.

Comment Re: Tipping point (Score 0) 540

Trade deficits are only 'not necessarily a bad thing' for those cases where trade deficits really mean *borrowing to invest*.

USA *borrows to consume*, thus in case of USA trade deficits are deadly, both figuratively *and* literally deadly. Figuratively because an economy dying is not really the same thing as a human dying, it's more like an inanimate process that is stopping. Literally because a dying economy leads to actual human poverty, suffering and death for a large number of reasons.

You are actually half way correct that so far trade deficits worked well for the USA because the foreigners did all that work that subsidised the USA consumer, who did not have to work to pay for all that consumption. This is possible (or was possible) because so far US dollar is still a so called 'reserve currency', though it is not backed by anything other than 'faith' and probably some military presence.

People expect things to continue the same way as what they have been accustomed to and they do not expect any serious changes to their lives over their life spans. However people are very often wrong about that, big changes happen, they happen often, they happen suddenly (especially for the uninitiated into the reality of what is happening around them).

What you call a 'sound economic policy' I call 'suicidal economic policy'. I know from your words here that you actually think that government intervention is 'sound economic policy', however it was government intervention that created the situation that required more government intervention. More government intervention further leads to a situation that requires even more government intervention.

If you paid attention to what history shows you would know that government intervention has an accumulative effect and it is self destructing. Pumping fake liquidity into an economy that needs to restructure the debts is the wrong thing, not the right thing. What happened 8 years ago did not prevent a depression, it assured it. 1929 recession was created by government policy, specifically by money printing by the Fed and by buying bad UK debt from France. It was a gigantic bailout that inflated the stock market bubble that eventually burst. Hoover and FDR turned a normal process of deleveraging and debt restructuring into a depression by pumping more liquidity into the system.

They even bought good farming products and ploughed the products into the ground to avoid prices from falling, that's government in action: the market restructures bad ideas and debts but also brings prices down, making it easier to survive the restructuring by the most vulnerable in the system. Government steps in and says: you cannot have that benefit, the prices will stay up and the bad decisions will not be allowed to clear, instead they will be kept around and made bigger by more inflation (money printing) and actual welfare redistribution to those business that failed.

This does not guarantee good outcomes, this ensures accumulating and multiplying of bad outcomes. This is the same thing that happened a number of times in the last (and this) century and it is coming to the point where the impact of the next crisis will no longer be manageable by these usual tools that the government has (and it's always just one tool, often disguised under different names), it is theft, it is money printing and theft of existing purchasing and saving power of those, who have savings.

If you understood any of this, you wouldn't have written the statements that you did. Not understanding all of this so far very likely means further misunderstanding on your part and this also may mean that the coming crisis will hit you in a way that you cannot comprehend.

Comment Re:A slap in the wrist (Score 0) 159

Not because of the amount, no, but as a general principle of the matter I think Bezos will pay attention and do something useful with that money. I know I would not hesitate to spend a few billion bucks in his place to destroy the current Canadian government and would ensure that my selection of people get elected. The problem with the governments is that they exist but since they do they need to be used for good, not for evil. Companies need to ensure that individual freedoms are upheld by the governments and this to me means that the governments (the collective) must not be able with the private property rights and this 1000000 dollar theft is just that.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is better to live rich than to die rich. -- Samuel Johnson

Working...