Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 1) 472

> Libertarian isn't just economic freedom
I know it's not supposed to be. But the reality is -that this is what it is. I've never seen a libertarian willing to sacrifice a tiny bit of economic freedom to secure greater civil liberties. If libertarianism was really about more than economics - then that trade-off would be an absolute no-brainer.

>Pinochet was a military dictator who ruled with an iron fist
But it was limited government - the government basically consisted of defense and police - the only things that libertarians think it should be.

> Learn your political science.
Learn to distinguish theory from practice. It's impossible to GET libertarian economics WITHOUT a dictator. That's exactly what Thatcher told Hayek, it's what libertarians constantly discover. Because if you give people power over the government - they always end up demanding the government help the homeless because they are sick and tired of all the people down-on-their-luck crapping on their porch. There is a reason rural people tend to be conservative and urban people tend to be liberal. It's because urban people deal with problems that only happen when you have millions of people in the same city - problems that can really only be solved by liberal ideas because thats the only set of ideals that even considers them. Libertarianism - as the far end of conservative thought keeps running into the problem that the vast majority of people are urban -to get them to accept a politics that ignores most of the day-to-day things they have to deal with - you have to force it on them, because they'll never voluntarily do so. When you're rural living, the government has neither much need nor ability to affect your life. The nearest government services are usually so far away that relying on them is insane. But when you live in a city, with so many people close together - that kind of self-reliance is utterly impossible. You HAVE to be interdependent to make the whole damn thing have any chance of working. Government is merely the means by which you, as a group, deal with those things that cannot be efficiently done by private individuals. Government becomes a vital aspect of your very ability to survive. If government wasn't running the sewage system - every cholera infection would be an outbreak that kills millions of people. You can't trust private industry to do it either because private industry wants to make a profit but your OWN safety depends on EVERYBODY - even those with NO money who CANNOT buy the service having ACCESS to the service. Libertarianism and conservative thought simply doesn't WORK in a city.

Comment Re:And what are the other terms? (Score 4, Interesting) 186

Indeed, he is flagrantly biassed. He was the head of the New Horizon's project - which just sent us a huge amount of data to study on Pluto. Studies which cost money, and having Pluto not deemed a planet anymore has, he says, made it harder to drum up funding for that research.

The answer of course is: because everything in our solar system should be studied - not just planets. One of the greatest achievements in recent astronomy has been landing a probe on a comet, because it taught us a great deal about comets (things we couldn't learn from the remnants that sometimes fall on earth). Studying mars is cool - but we SHOULD be putting probes on Eris as well.

Good probes to Titan, Europa and Ganymede are important studies to undertake in the near future - they are among the highest likelihood cases for life elsewhere in the solar system. Europan bacteria would be a fantastic discovery - Europan 'fish' an unlikely but amazing bonus - but we will never know if we don't go look.

If anything looking at planets is near the bottom of the priority list. Most of the planets are gas giants - there's only so much you can learn from something you can't land on.

Comment Re:And what are the other terms? (Score 1) 186

That's no egg... it's a testicle !

You're not an egghead, you're a testicle head. And frankly for somebody who seems to think the primary purpose of science is building instruments of death (as opposed to the reality where that is a major perversion of science) - that's the kindest and most euphemistically polite term I can think of.

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 3, Informative) 472

The numbers come from a 2006 article about the 1970's protests against Friedman at his own University - which I had used as a reference to prove the no-platforming is decidedly NOT an millennial invention - the boomers started it (and while I defend no-platforming as BEING rather than attacking free speech, the boomers probably didn't qualify in the same way because they crossed a line millennials have generally refused to go near in protesting to demand the firing of a tenured professor - there's a huge difference between being selective of what outside speakers you want to welcome on campus outside of class, and protesting which TEACHERS are allowed to teach there).

Either way, the numbers on Chile were largely mentioned in passing, as the article was mostly focussed on the role of Friedman and Hayek - and their subsequent influence on the Reagan and Thatcher administrations (it was so funny to see a libertarian declare Reagan an evil that libertarians fought against... when the REASON they fought him was not being libertarian enough after missing my original point: it's impossible for any non-dictator to actually DO all the libertarians want, it cannot be done because in a democracy you can never convince THAT MANY people to sacrifice themselves on the altars of the moneyed gods). Reagan got protested by libertarians because of what checks and balances PREVENTED him from doing.

Anyway, it's quite possible I misread a number, or just remembered one wrong, or the article could have had a typo. As I said my reading of it was for a different purpose and the focus of the article itself was on a different aspect of that history. So I'm happy to concede I may have had that number wrong.
That the Chilean economic 'miracle' never happened however is beyond dispute. It looked great on paper but it never represented any actual growth.
You can contrast that with the Argentinian miracle - arguably the greatest vindication of anarcho-socialist philosophy since the Andalusia. The economy collapsed and the capitalists fled with their cash. Then the workers just showed up and kept running the abandoned businesses as democratic coops... and in the same economic conditions where the capitalists had given up and fled while they still had money... these coops thrived, their profit-sharing meant everybody was also earning more - so they could buy things, which meant the success of every coop guaranteed the success of the others by providing a steady supply of customers who could afford to buy the goods they made. Today these coops provide over 80% of Argentinian employment with the remainder being mostly civil servants and a small number working for overseas companies that have since returned. On paper, Argentina's economy is in dire straits - in PRACTICE it's one of the most successful in the world. The elites aren't making money, the usual measurements are showing terrible declines as a result - but the PEOPLE are living the highest quality of life in their history and funding it with genuine productivity. The exact opposite of how Chile ended up. And thus, very unlikely to experience a similar crash (it's been going on ten years now and no dangerous crash-like signs are showing).
What's interesting is that this form of workers-own-the-means-of-production socialism happened with no statism, no state involvement in fact, and no violence or revolution either. Which probably explains why the outcome has been so positive -since the things that destroyed Soviet-style communism (the authoritarian all-powerful state) was absent from the equation and it retained the best aspects of the free market. These independent businesses still compete with each other in an open market, it's just that in the successful ones the profit actually goes to the people who created it.

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 5, Insightful) 472

It's amazing how people who claim their philosophy is about freedom - seem so comfortable with giving the state, and the rich, near absolute power. They say they want government small - but they don't mean "staying out of people's personal lives" (hence their comfortable alliance with social conservatives), they just mean "not charging much tax". As if that's the only measure of of a government. As if how the tax is used doesn't count at all.
They say they care about freedom - but it doesn't involve freedom from losing everything you built up in a mortgage scam by a bank. It doesn't involve the freedom from bankruptcy just because your daughter got cancer - meaning you are now both childless and pennyless. Those are freedoms they don't care about- because it affects situations they never anticipate experiencing.
The automatic consequence of freedom of association and freedom of contract - which is unionization they deplore as a "distortion of the market". But apparently pooling your resources to negotiate better deals is ONLY a "distortion" if ordinary people do it, companies can do it all they want - up to and including colluding across entire industries and building monopoly cartells - since they argue companies should have "Freedom" from antitrust laws.

They always say that "fraud" should be illegal but I have no idea what the fuck they define as "fraud" except it isn't the definition everybody else uses - since the things they don't consider "fraud" (and actively defend) includes flagrantly lying to your customers about what your product can and cannot do, deceptive practices in contracts, deliberately hiding information from consumers. I've seen libertarian journalists writing articles denouncing the lies of homeopathy and calling homeopaths 'scam-artists' yet never making the logical leap that this implies they OUGHT to be liable for prosecution for fraud. Instead they defend these businesses from such scrutiny by law.

And undermining democratically elected governments to put a business friendly dictator in place is, somehow, never morally unacceptable to them. A long history in which Brazil right now is just the latest chapter (and indeed, they've done it to that country twice before. Each time - after decades of suffering and hardship the Brazilians win back their freedom in the end, and then choose liberal leaders because they are a liberal people - and each time within a few years... these champions of 'freedom' goes full out to destroy their choice).

It seems flagrantly obvious that the one thing libertarians have NEVER given a flying fuck about is liberty. But it does sound better than saying "I want other people to pay my taxes for me and when I rob them I don't want to be punished".

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 4, Interesting) 472

There is another factor from which America gained huge benefit: German and Japanese industry had been decimated. Without funding from the US they likely could not have recovered at all - but for many decades US manufacturing had effectively no competition. Toyota and BMW were slowly rebuilding from nothing - a process that took decades. It's easy for your factories to get rich, and pay people well, when the only competition is from other companies in your own country with the exact same legal and economic situation as you have.

Then in the 1970s... something very bad happened. With a lot of help from the CIA one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century came to power - his name was Pinochet. Pinochet was heavily influenced by the likes of Milton Friedman and Friederich Hayek who sold him on their (entirely devoid of evidence theory - that actually rejects the idea that theories need evidence) of how to create a successful economy.
And he followed their advice. It was a dark time - tens of thousands of people were brutally murdered, and twice that many starved to death as he implemented Milton's "shock therapy".
By 1978 though - the economy had gotten over the worst of the harm (if only because the poor people were mostly dead now) and suddenly the so-called Pinochet miracle happened. The economy grew at an astounding rate, for a while it had the highest GDP in the world ! Pinochet actually considered decoupling his currency from the dollar (something he had originally done to try and forceably destroy inflation) just because it was clearly worth so much more.
And while these figure were coming from Chile - that's when Friendman and Hayek started seeing western heads of state - at the height of the Chile boom in 1980 they sold their ideas very successfully to Thatcher and Reagan.

Neither implemented them fully - Thatcher told Hayek why: because it's not possible in a free country. The greatest libertarian economic experiment of all time - took a dictator to do, because it's impossible to get it all done WITHOUT one. Libertarians don't like to talk about that - but they know it's true. That's the real reason Peter Thiel funded Trump: he wanted America to get a dictator who would do what Pinochet did.

That was the beginning of the world we live in now - of the gradual destruction of wages and the working class, the ever growing gap - not just in wealth but in POWER between a small elite and the rest of society - and a world where nobody gets to raise their family with a modicum of financial security anymore.

And the worst part: the Chilean miracle was a lie. It never happened. Chile's amazing GDP ? It consisted ENTIRELY of currency trading, there was no actual productivity on the ground driving it. It was mathematical fiction which made a few Chilean elites very rich but had nothing real to back it up... by 1982 the lie was exposed, the Chilean economy collapsed entirely. Friedman and Hayek's disastrous grand experiment - having already killed tens of thousands of people, came to it's final, crashing failure.
But it was too - late the conservative politicians of the west had picked up the ball and started running with it, and they were not going to change course. They still haven't changed course - even after these same policies caused the biggest global recession since the great depression itself. Among the very first things they started doing when they got back into power last november was to dismantle the (meager) protections that was put in place after the crash in order to prevent another one. Because preventing such crashes doesn't suit them - not when the means to prevent them means bankers TODAY make ever so slightly less obscene profits.

Comment Re: Good grief. Idiot or Troll? (Score 1) 901

As for evolutionary biology: merely mentioning it as a possibility proves three things:

1) you do not understand it all as it cannot lead to such outcomes. When biology says women are on average more X than men 60 percent of women will be less X than 40 percent if men. Because thats how bell curves work.

2) that the problem of sexist biases makimg these tracks unattractive to women is very real

3) that you are, as I previously posited, part of the problem.

Comment Re:DuckDuckGo (Score 1) 103

Heh, sometimes you can (briefly) find things that are quite hard to find elsewhere.

A couple of years ago I really wanted to rewatch the short-lived Flash series from the 1990s. It was a single season series but I had loved it as a kid - and it had been cancelled for being too expensive to make, not for lack of quality (it was actually quite good and it's normal criminals mostly approach was an early precursor to the hit superhero shows we have now).
Only trouble is - I couldn't find it. No torrents anywhere. I couldn't even find legal DVD copies (since it aired before DVD existed).

Eventually I randomly searched youtube - and got to watch the entire series there. It seems to have been removed at some point since then though.

Comment Re:Good grief. Idiot or Troll? (Score 1) 901

No, but WE are asking the smart question: if so MANY women choose to avoid those fields - WHY. What is it about those fields that make so many women prefer to stay the hell away from it ?

Now, based on available evidence, we have a strong theory about what the answer may be - a theory you definitely do not agree with. Now a rational answer would be to posit and alternative theory, or show that somehow, the evidence for our theory is false.

You have made no attempt to do either - you tried to derail the conversation by focusing on something else entirely. You accuse us of trying to force choices on women - which is the exact OPPOSITE of trying to fix things which force choices on women. But you never addressed the evidence for our theory, and you posited no alternative hypotheses to explain the phenomenon and the evidence.
I can therefore only conclude that you are incapable of doing so. If we're wrong- you've done absolutely nothing to correct us, if we're right, all you've done is tried ot delay us fixing the problem. That is a very sensible thing to do... if you are part of the problem.

Slashdot Top Deals

We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise. -- Larry Wall