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: minwage $11.40-$9.90 (Score 1) 513

If you dislike society so much - leave it.
That's your option. You don't like a society with a social contract, you think you can take from what WE paid for and not help pay for it yourself ? Then leave.

I hear Mogadishu is EXACTLY what you are hoping for. Pinochet did it in Chile too but that's gone unfortunately for you.

What ? You don't WANT to live under brutal warlords or dictators ? Well news for you - ANCAP doesnt work - ANCAP always ends up being run by brutal warlords. And libertarian societies cannot even come to EXIST without a dictator to create them. That noted socialist Margaret Thatcher told F.A. Hayek she CANNOT replicate Chile's policies beyond the small bit she did - because it's not POSSIBLE in a democracy where the leaders have to actually answer to the citizens for their policies - where the leaders have to negotiate and collaborate with opposition leaders in the parliament.

So your dream cannot exist in anything resembling a free society. In a democracy - it can't be done. You can get the libertarian economics if you have a dictator but then you lose ALL the other freedoms. Or you can try the ANCAP way and, as it ALWAYS HAS, end up getting killed in the crossfire as the brutal warlords fight for control (coincidentally - those warlords don't give a fuck about your personal liberties either).

Basically - yours is a pipe dream. The only way you can have what you want is in a society of one. Maybe "one family" - any bigger than that and the entire thing falls the fuck appart. Just as it always has, every single time it's been tried.

The only anarchist state that ever managed to exist as a successful, industrialised economy - was a socialist one: Andalusia. The anarchism worked because there was no economic inequality from which warlords can arise.

Comment Re: minwage $11.40-$9.90 (Score 1) 513

If that is, indeed, how you see things - you need to have your eyes checked.

In the real world - society comes with a social contract. You want all the benefits of NOT living alone on some mountaintop - up to and including everything produced by private business which cannot exist outside society - then you have to pay your share for the upkeep of that society and it's shared infrastructure.
If you refuse to pay your share, you don't get to TAKE your share either.

Comment Re:That's the big problem... (Score 2) 82

The problem is the presumption that the data doesn't have a physical location when you are dealing with a cloud. You may not directly know where a given hunk of data is physically stored at, but such storage is still a requirement for current computing practices. It can be destroyed, confiscated, lost, or even simply scrambled where you have no control over what happens. It can also be copied and distributed to places which may not be in a place you want it at (like a competitor or somebody who intends to do you harm).

Keeping data in a cloud is fine for temporary stuff or for data that is of a transitory nature that might be discarded a day or two later. Also if the data is of a nature that if it is published on the front page of a newspaper or on Wikipedia, nobody would care.... you generally don't have a problem. If you really want to keep the data for any length of time... due to legal requirements or even something that is vital to the mission success of your company or organization, it is really idiotic to rely upon 3rd parties who don't have a vested interested in your success to be keeping that data.

Comment Re:Yes but (Score 1) 713

Technically there is a sort of unwritten rule that people who have an honorary doctorate but no actual PHD should not use the title doctor. It's not actually illegal or anything - but it tends to raise eyebrowse and cause scandals as it's seen as somewhat deceptive.

I'm not sure I agree that it should - an honorary doctorate could be argued to be a GREATER achievement than a PHD since to get one you must have made some pretty significant contributions to the field - getting one in a field you don't hold a PHD in is generally the preserve of an extremely rare and talented few. One could debate if an honorary doctorate in literature for a lifetime of great writing shows a greater or lesser genius than an honorary doctorate in physics for theorising a new particle that was later discovered by researchers, but nobody would claim either is not a pretty significant achievement (though this is one of the rare cases where the amateur poet is likely to be a LOT richer than the amatuer physics researcher - there is an entire career path out there for non-formally trained writers, not so much for untrained physics fans).

Comment Re:Correcting myself (Score 1) 713

I wonder how far that decision goes. Could somebody cite it as precedent who is charged with impersonating an officer ? How about impersonating a federal agent ?

Hell imagine if they have to deal with somebody claiming a first amendment right to pretend he's a supreme court judge ! That would be one hilarious case. Neil Gorsuch would eat his own robe trying to untie the Gordian knot in his brain.

Comment Re: Correcting myself (Score 1) 713

As far as I know there are very few, if any, state laws to that effect- because they aren't needed. There is already a federal law that reserves the title to people licensed by the AMA. Several states have expansions on that law however, for example requiring licensing for things like acupuncturists and such (it doesn't make them not charlatans but at least it means your charlatan has actually trained in the con-artistry he sells).

It's one of those sad ironies. In Japan - some practitioners of accupuncture did (in the 1990s) subject themselves to the scientific method, had their 'treatment' tested in double-blind studies - and ended up with it only being confirmed as working for a very narrow subset of what it was used for (and in a very different way to how tradition claimed) - it is in fact a valid, medical way to treat pain (but treating the cause of pain is generally a better idea). Oddly - scientific acupuncture never really took off commercially, perhaps because those who care about science know it does nothing that a tablet doesn't also do and the tablet doesn't require poking holes in your body, and of course less scientifically minded people would rather go to the acupuncturist who promises to cure his diabetes as well.

Comment Re: Correcting myself (Score 4, Interesting) 713

It came from a very pragmatic, and not terrible, goal - to ensure peer review of massive infrastructure project designs - and peer approval of their designers. It's major outcome has been that very, very few suspension bridges have ever collapsed. These are not things the free market can reasonably function at - how would consumers know whether the materials in the supporting cables are really strong enough to keep it up past 5 years ?
Now it's quite possible the regulations are overbroad if just saying "I'm an engineer" in a context where you are clearly referring to "has the relevant qualifications" and are not trying to sell a design to anybody is covered under it - it could be that there is room for a constitutional challenge which may lead to a narrowing of what such regulations can actually say.
It's unlikely though. "I'm an engineer" is a statement of fact, the supreme court has consistently held that - where a strong government or public interest exists, the state has the right to restrict false statements of fact under narrow conditions. I am pretty sure that "we don't want shopping malls to fall on our heads" count as a strong government and public interest.

Comment Re:Yeah, go ahead, blame TRUMP! (Score 2, Interesting) 713

Well there are more reasons for that hope. Contrary to what so many people believe - being president is nothing like heading a company, and being good at one does not suggest you'll be good at the other, indeed the two jobs are almost exact opposites in the skills they require. I'll run through the differences just now - but it's worth noting that the republicans don't seem to recognize the importance of those differences and keep running businessmen for president. 3 of their last 5 candidates were businessmen - and to add injury to insult, they aren't aren't even good at picking businessmen since only one of the three Mitt Romney could be called a successful businessman.

Why being president is nothing like running a company:
- A business owner is risking his own money, the president is managing OUR money
- A business owner has customers, the president does not - those people out there using government services, paying taxes, ... we're not his customers, we are his BOSSES.
- A business owner has near absolute power over business decisions. A president is limited by checks and balances including congress and the courts.
- A business owner can make decisions single-handedly about things like spending and budget priorities, a president gets no real say in that - Congress writes the budget. He can tell them what he would like, but they have no obligation to care. If a CEO and his accountant do not agree on which departments should get budget priority, there is very little risk of the entire company shutting down for weeks - this has happened to government more than once.
- A business owner competes with his rivals in the market, but they take great care not to let each other know their plans and desires. A president has his competition INSIDE THE SAME ORGANISATION and has to negotiate with them on things they don't agree with - giving them some of what they want in return for some of what he wants and cooperate with them on things that they agree on and sometimes just ignore all their beliefs to do the basic jobs of governance together.
- If a business reduces it's expenses, there is almost zero risk of reducing it's income through the exact same action - this is almost ALWAYS the outcome when a government cuts expenses (because a government's income comes from taxing other people's income and government expenses ARE other people's income, and the income of a bunch of people who have never done business with government is reduced too - because the people who do business with government cannot buy as much from them anymore). As a general rule, austerity (especially in a recession) is the economic equivalent of saving money on your heating bill by burning your paycheck for warmth.

I could go on and on but I think I've made my point, frankly what I find myself entirely incapable of doing - is finding a SINGLE thing the two jobs actually have in common - a single overlapping skill between them. A good janitor is MORE qualified to president than the CEO of the company he cleans for - because a good janitor is good at understanding and executing the wishes of his superiors- and the president has a LOT of superiors, 320 million of them in fact.

Comment Re: minwage $11.40-$9.90 (Score 1) 513

No taxation is not theft.

The lifeblood of any business is customers, more customers is never a bad thing.

I'm guessing you had some reasons to think you are unlikely to end up destittute if it failed - perhaps you knew you had relatives who would take you in while you got back on your feet, perhaps you owned your home, perhaps you are highly educated and knew re-entering the job market would not be difficult or take excessively long. Your personal experience cannot be extrapolated from. Many people cannot risk their savings on a business - because if it goes wrong their family is out on the street. If they have a way to guarantee not being out on the street until they get back on their feet- then they can. Your logical fallacy is: anecdotal.
The empirical FACT is: that every UBI experiment ever done saw a massive upsurge in entrepeneurship by providing a risk-floor. No they were not starting a business with 'other people's money' - they were just putting a floor on the risk that didn't involve starvation.

> which brings the value of that income to nothing.
Then how come in 200 years of large-scale, long-term experiments - this has NEVER happened ?

>'Industrial Revolution caused massive poverty
Erm it did - in fact it caused, in England, the worst poverty in HISTORY -the average medieval PEASANT was (about 200 tmes) richer than the typical working class person in the Industrial revolution. Sure it ALSO produced massive weatlh - but only for a very small number of people. The average working class person in London would have been BETTER OFF as a subsistence farmer - subsistence farmers reliably EAT - those people didn't, especially as factories mostly employed children rather than their parents (because they were cheaper) and people just had to accept a child mortality rate of over 90% (it was 50% a hundred years earlier). And you are still ignoring that UBI has been extensively, scientifically, studied - and NONE of your predictions has EVER happened.

Slashdot Top Deals

A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth