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

 



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

Comment Re: Trump lost by millions (Score 1) 454

I wonder if anyone has looked to see if Trump would have won without winner-take-all?

I think I saw some analysis that if *all* states split their electors proportional to the votes Clinton would have 262 electors, and Trump would have 258 electors, Gary Johnson would have 10 electors and Stein and McMullen would each have 1. Since no candidate would have the majority (270 required), the House of Representatives would consider the top 3 candidates from the Electoral College. Since the House is mostly Republican 247-188, even with a large number of defections, I suspect that Trump would still have won the election.

The scenario that some people are proposing to obsolete the Electoral College is that if a majority of electors were required to cast their vote for whoever got the majority of the popular vote throughout the US. This is similar but not the same as eliminating the overweight that small states have over the big states (because of the "bonus" senator electors) and marginalizes all the battleground states (as they would often simply just split +-1 electoral vote).

Without any type of winner take all complication, any strong 3rd party showing (like this latest 2016) election would likely mean no majority, so unless you want a president elected with a plurality, you probably will end up throwing the election to the House of Representatives.

However, if you read the Federalist papers, direct representation is clearly not what they intended for the office of the president. The complication of the Electoral College was taken because they wanted to make sure that candidates for president weren't just selected for their ability to be popular in a few states as they knew it would take completely different attributes/talents for a president to be successful and accepted by "a considerable a portion" of the whole country. They also wanted to minimize the ability of persons trying to corrupt the process or advancing "manchurian" candidates by distributing the power across all the states so that corrupting influence in one part of the country had a minimal effect on the process. Also, electors were to be chosen only for the task of electing a president and no other purpose and weren't allowed to be holding office in the House or Senate to minimize any institutional influence and corruption. Seems to me these are all worthy goals. Personally, I think more people should read the Federalist papers...

Comment Um? (Score 1) 454

I now live near Oakland, CA, any my precinct had 142% turn out.

Greater than 100% turnout happened in every county I looked at here in CA. For Oakland County where I live:

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/MI/Oakland/63990/184040/en/vt_data.html

My precinct had >160% turnout. There is massive fraud here in CA.

FYI Oakland, California is in *ALAMEDA COUNTY*.

Given that Hillary won in California by 2:1 over Donald, even if there were massive fraud in California, it had exactly zero bearing on the election. However, if you insist, here are the Oakland Alameda, California results. Out of 888709 registered, only 670245 total ballots were cast (~75%). In Alameda County in California, Hillary received 78.06% of votes cast and Donald only managed to receive 14.54% of the votes.

Your link is for the state of *MICHIGAN* (Oakland County). Fromyour link there are only two precincts that report > 100% Southfield Township precincts 8/9 which reported a total 4258 votes vs 2551 registered

Comment Re:"Years" (Score 4, Insightful) 109

Pretty impressive to be "years" behind schedule, 2 years after you founded the company. They should declare "time bankruptcy" and start from scratch.

Not that I'm defending them, but Magic leap gave their first technology demo in 2011, so it wasn't just 2 years ago the started...

It was 2 years ago they closed their "A" round of financing ($50M) which was technically when they started their "clock"
Google lead their "B" round of financing ($542M)
And earlier this year, Alibaba lead their "C" round of financing (~$800M at a $4.5B valuation),

So they've raised ~$1.4B to date, but I'm guessing the"C" round financiers are shortly about to take a bath...

FWIW, Magic Leap doesn't seem to be organized like a tech venture, but more like a entertainment studio. From all reports, the tech that they seem like they are developing is adapted from medical tech: a single fiber scanning endoscope technology worked on at University of Washington by Eric Seibel. The chief technical officer of Magic Leap is Brian Schowengerdt who was Mr. Seibel's research partner. Apparently, the idea is to reverse the endoscope from being a camera to being a projector. Of course there are issues involved in adapting any technology, so it's not unexpected that they have run into a boat load of trouble and are years behind. Such is the nature of high tech.

Comment Re:A new golden age (Score 1) 322

I can also see the Dem's having a field day about Saudi money financing Trump's desires.

The Dems probably shouldn't be throwing such stones. Two reasons...
1. Apparently the Clinton Foundation has ingested quite a bit of Saudi money over the years...
2. SoftBank is a *Japanese* tech conglomerate, not a Saudi tech fund...

Comment Re:A new golden age (Score 1) 322

The other reason that China bought up a lot of US debt was to make sure there were no more property bubbles in the Far East funded by American money. They deliberately prevented Trump and people like him developing land over there, and aren't about to let them now.

It could get ugly if Trump and co. start using the US economy as leverage to get personal real-estate deals off the ground.

Hardly. There are property bubbles like you can't imagine all over the far east (including china in Shanghai and Shenzen). Are you trying to say that by buying US treasuries, they prevented the private US companies from borrowing money to invest in real-estate deals? Apparently the People's Bank of China didn't get the memo because they were basically funding both the bubble AND buying US treasuries. Of course now they have over the last couple years sold a big chunks of their US treasury holdings to address their own liquidity problems because of their slowing economy and the growing property bubbles.

If they were "smart" they would have let american companies take some of that risk, right?

Sounds to me that China bought up a lot of US debt as a safe place to park money that has the advantage of being pretty liquid (because there is a robust secondary market in US debt instruments)... Just like everyone else in the world does.

Comment Re:Anything you can do, AI can do better (Score 1) 536

If you're offering a standard guaranteed job teaching, you'll soon find that you have far too many teachers, many of whom have no talent or fondness for the job and will do a bad job.

Having far too many teachers is better than the current situation where people that could teach, don't because it's more lucrative to do than to teach. If students (and I don't mean just K-12) have a great choice in their teachers because there is a surplus, I have a feeling that would work out better for everyone.

The Peace Corps idea has serious problems: will we be sending a hundred and fifty million people out of the country to tell other people how to run things? Do we want a permanent large diaspora? What happens when less developed countries start to catch up, and don't want two million Americans around?

National service ideas isn't like the peace corp. You don't go out of the country, you help out in your own community. You can read about what they have going now here. Although they serve as a clearinghouse for volunteers today, leveraging this for skilled volunteers that are renumerated based on their skills is certainly a possibility that shouldn't be overlooked when you have a 150million (your number) looking for something to occupy their time, and use their skills.

Certainly seems better than paying them to be stuffed in a free education classroom to me, but maybe that is just me.

Comment Re: Fake news? (Score 1) 410

It's a nice little fiction that Canada is single payer, but the reality is quite a bit more complicated.

Although it is technically illegal for private health clinics to charge for services that are covered by the Canada Health Act, they often do indirectly and that is rarely enforced. Although it isn't too common yet, people sometimes go to employer or union sponsored clinics which were set up to avoid queuing at traditional clinics. Also, you or your employer can purchase private health insurance to cover the fees charged by these private clinics which means of course a secondary insurance market exists as well. It isn't a big thing yet throughout Canada, but a two-tier system is looming there...

That's not to say the Canadian two-tier system isn't light-years more efficient than the two-tier system in the US (which is basically private insurance or medicaid/emergency-room-care).

Comment Re:Anything you can do, AI can do better (Score 1) 536

Except you're missing the point. What is that "basic job" in a world where every possible job can be done better by a robot than by a human?

Are you proposing something like a WPA? Are you proposing "make work" jobs, where half the people dig holes in the ground, and the other half fill them in? Are you proposing that the government pay businesses to employ people instead of robots (...and then tax the businesses, to give get the money to give them to hire the people?)

Although I haven't mentioned it, I actually do favor a WPA-like thing, but nothing like digging ditches, but more teaching/peace-core-like (kind of like the National service corps) for people that don't have an economically viable job. Don't like helping people? Well play video games in your basement, there is basic income after all...

The point of higher education is no longer to make people eligible for a job: it is to make them better human beings, and as a side benefit, to give them something to do for five, ten years to keep them off the job market because there aren't any jobs for them, while making them feel valuable in the process.

As I mentioned, the talented already get scholarships (and I have no argument giving more of those), the big question is what we do with those with lesser talents that can't find economically viable jobs... If you are suggesting we spend resources to give everyone participation ribbons to make them feel valuable, well personally I don't think that's a great way to spend resources, and maybe that's a political point where I disagree with folks the most on this subject.

Comment Re: W/o a future job as an economic endpoint for t (Score 1) 536

why fund it ? Perhaps because educated people make smarter decisions? Worldwide uneducated people out-breed educated people at a rate of about 4:1. Surely a populace less interested in breeding, because they understand the indirect costs, is a benefit worthy of funding higher education for all?

Although you seem attribute the "breeding" to being uneducated, I would submit to you that the reason is more economic than education. You can probably also show that when women have viable economic options, the fertility rate goes down. The only difference is economic options now are somewhat correlated with educational attainment. If you decouple that (e.g, a single mother busts their but in "free" community college only to find the jobs prospects are the same as before they attended, except now they lost all that "time-resource"). If you don't think that is happening even today, you haven't been following the for-profit college scandal very closely...

If nothing else, I would argue that art (literature, dance, acting, etc. ) benefits from so called higher education. Education, like travel, is broadening; it opens vistas of knowledge and experience to people that go beyond the requirements of the mundane "future job", allowing them to contribute to society in non-material ways.

If nobody has a job anyhow, I assume some people will teach for enjoyment and some people will learn. There's no need to make a big government program out of it (e.g., pay the teachers to teach and subsidize the direct materials cost). If you have to pay for travel or to play a video game or smoke a bong with basic income, why not pay to learn painting or literature with your basic income. Why should the government be picking "winners" and "losers" in the "broadening" choice?

Comment Re:Better be ready to be beat up when layed off wo (Score 1) 536

K-12 is free or should we have loans for that as well?

What about making education loans have chapter 11 and chapter 7? so the schools and banks have skin in the game.

As I mention, K-12's value was presumably to have an educated populace for voting purposes (not that it actually works). Higher education? A lot of folks do that now to get ahead, but if there is basic income, but no career ladder, why bother?

Sure, bankruptcy is a fine way to make schools and banks have skin in the game. Higher education shouldn't be except from that (it only is viable in it's current state now to keep the interest rate low).

Comment Re:New Title (Score 1) 536

There's very little a CEO does that can't be done by an AI.

Maybe, but the only real job of the CEO is to sell the story of the company to wall street. I suspect if/when we get AI that can do that effectively, wall street would be dead as it would fall for scam companies harder than it does today...

The main problem with CEOs is that they are hired like most other types of employees (with a basic assumption that some sort of pedigree or prior job experience makes them a good fit for the job), yet are paid like they have founding risk-ownership of the company (and many are simply consultants or carpetbagger who don't deserve so much risk-adjusted compensation).

You see exactly the same phenomena in professional sports (e.g., with a star player like a quarterback or head coach). Sometimes these hires work out, sometime they are a bust and barrels of virtual ink is spilled on grumbling at how much money was wasted on such prospects. The only thing people enjoy more than collectively building up people is later when we collectively tear them down.

The real "conspiracy game" is in who owns these companies that hire these CEOs. Although you might think that collectively "we" own them (as most are so-called public companies so we are the owners in fact), the reality is that "we" have delegated the responsibilities that come with ownership to a small group of illuminati that use this leveraged influence to do whatever they want with these companies resources as they have become the owners in reality.

Comment Re:Machines make customers irrelevant too. (Score 1) 536

We are only a means of production. If all of the means of production are automated, then we employees will be useless. The machines will do the production part. Why bother with employees when the machines will just create what their owners want? We will be cut out completely, and we will no longer have value.

Basically, for accounting purposes employees can be direct labor, indirect labor, or overhead. Direct labor is directly proportional to production (more production implies more direct labor hours). I suspect the jobs many of the people on slashdot work at ar already classified as indirect labor (e.g, IT support services, maintenance), or simply overhead (e.g., developers, managers, etc). Only those companies that are providing services directly to customers count IT services as direct labor, if it services internal customers, it's indirect labor (if it is somewhat proportional to production rates), or overhead (if it's relatively independent to production rates).

Simple automation and robotics have already cut most direct labor jobs to the bone (that whole "means of production" meme). Advanced automation and AI will now start cutting deeper into indirect labor and overhead jobs too.

FWIW, any job that is actually direct labor is probably proportional to sales of a company and would be relatively safe as long as the company is doing well (more sales would mean more direct labor required by definition). To achieve cost savings, in such a company, the owners would have to simply cut overhead jobs.

Comment Re:"people largely irrelevant" (Score 1) 536

It's still going to be an issue. If the minimum IQ for a job hits, say, 130, and the minimum training takes a real STEM education, you're talking mass unemployment right there. The "any idiot can do this job" jobs will pretty much be gone.

After the last Comcast internet install I witnessed, I predict that although it may not eventually be the case that "any idiot can do this job", it is quite possible that "any idiot can be hired for this job and muddle through it". The technician in this case spent ~75% of the time on his bluetooth headset with someone at home base talking him through the install (e.g., taking signal measurements of various cables, placement of the unity gain amps, ping-ing the cable modem to check signal levels etc)...

Given the "complexity" of the install, I'm pretty confident that eventually the person on the home-base side of that conversation could be anywhere in the world reading a script and probably eventually be automated. During the install, I couldn't stop thinking about that Pixar film Ratatouille.

Slashdot Top Deals

Somebody's terminal is dropping bits. I found a pile of them over in the corner.

Working...