Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: Question (Score 1) 357

What you say would be true if any form of addiction were a choice. But it's not. Even addictive behavior is governed by brain chemistry so it is, in fact, chemically induced. To assume that without disincentives people would not experiment with habit-forming destructive addictive behaviors is unjustified. And addiction (by definition) takes hold as a result of initial experimenting with addictive behavior. If less people were disincentivised to be addicted, then more people would become addicted. It's not a statement about a cause and a necessary effect. It's a statement about a cause of a statistical bias in one direction or another direction.

Comment Re: competition (Score 1) 357

If anything, just take away the parents' basic income if they have too many kids. The disincentive would probably work very well.

Not for the kids. If the point of basic income is to alleviate suffering of the least able, then taking it away from the care takers of children would also accomplish the opposite of the intended goal.

Comment Re:aha (Score 1) 129

Even within a society which has a very cheap price of labor there can exist people whose labor is very costly. Your example was inappropriate because it was an example of automating away jobs of just such people within China. China is not automating away the jobs of the people with lowest wages. It only makes sense to automate away the wages of those whose skills are in high demand, but who have little political sway or control over the process (highly-skill non-manager positions). So your example in no way whatsoever disproved the point that "automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people".

This assertion is a load of crap

Fuck you with a cherry on top. I am just not in a mood for dumb asses who think they know something, but who in reality are cherry picking facts to prove points which are utterly wrong. You are the prime example of why "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." If you knew less, then at least you wouldn't have the confidence to assert the dumb ass shit you are asserting. But because you know a few things, but can't piece them together, you think you are coming from a position of reason. You are not. You are coming from a knee-jerk towards your favorite pipe dream based on cherry picked facts.

Comment competition (Score 1) 357

Anyone who thinks that competition can removed from work-incentive process completely disregards the fact that sexual conquest is present in all societies other than theocracies. So to remove all sources of competitiveness a society would need to introduce a strict moral code (Soviet Union certainly tried). This would mean suppressing natural human urges and would lead to development of authoritarian elements within the society. And authoritarian institutions would attract the most aggressive (most competitive) individuals. The end result would be a totalitarian regime existing for the sake of preserving its power rather than the originally intended purpose of social progress.

Comment Re:Got that, Microsoft shills? (Score 1) 144

The fact is you're avoiding the point, the point is that to some people privacy invasion is a harm like verbal harassment is a harm. Google are worse in reading peoples personal communications of course but there is better competition in email providers, if you're a PC gamer then there is nothing on a par with windows for the number of games available and at far better prices via seasonal sales etc.

Comment Re:aha (Score 1) 129

If human labour is so cheap then why did Foxconn recently say they've automated away 60000 jobs?

A classic example of how to make an argument seem like it addresses a point, while in fact it just makes an entirely different point, is to counter an argument which draws a comparison between 2 values with an argument which talks about one absolute value; or the other way around -- to counter a point about an absolute value with an argument about a comparative value.

I said automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people. You countered that "Foxconn recently say they've automated away 60000 jobs". It may mean that in this particular instance of Foxconn people were more expensive than the cost of automation. That does not extrapolate to conclusion that it would work out that way with all or even many industries in China. Human labor there is still very cheap. In most industries it's still cheaper than the cost of machines. A few examples where that's not the case do not prove the opposite point.

Democrats

Hillary Clinton Chooses Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine As Running Mate (go.com) 330

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine has been chosen as Hillary Clinton's running mate -- a man she called a "relentless optimist" who "devoted his life to fighting for others." Kaine has long been considered to be at the top of Clinton's short list. He was previously vetted for the vice presidency by Barack Obama in 2008. Kaine was an early supporter of Clinton's, appearing at a "Ready for Hillary" breakfast in May 2014 where he urged her to enter the 2016 presidential race. Kaine told NBC in June that he "encouraged her to run in May of 2014, because I could telescope forward and see some of the challenges that this nation would be facing. And I decided that by reason of character, by reason of background, and experience, but also especially by reason of results, she would be the most qualified person to be president in January of 2017." Prior to being elected to the Senate, Kaine served as governor and lieutenant governor of Virginia. In 2009, President Obama picked Kaine to lead the Democratic National Committee. Last week, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump announced Mike Pence as his VP running mate.

Comment Re:Universal health care and low cost education (Score 1) 129

Universal health care and low cost education are needed in the USA.

Low cost health care and universal education are needed in the USA. There. Fixed it for you. What's the point of cheap college education for people who fail to learn much during free public school education? And what's the point of universal coverage if there aren't enough doctors to provide the care?

Slashdot Top Deals

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!

Working...