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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Robots, robots everywhere! (Score 1) 341

Oh so your ultimate answer is taxation on the AI/robotic overlords in order to feed the masses?

Again, your ignorance blinds you.

Dude, tone down the rhetoric. It really doesn't facilitate rational discussion. Unless your goal isn't to have a rational discussion but just to make yourself feel good by spewing doom. In that case, I guess you're succeeding, but I have no motivation to participate further.

You assume that taxation has been the ultimate answer today, as trillions sit in offshore tax havens, driven by billionaire-funded lobbyists who manipulate governments into funding this kind of Greed. I fail to see how this shit situation will ever change in the future. The end result will be UBI being funded at the lowest legal level, which will essentially mean Welfare 2.0 for the planet.

The problem with money sitting offshore is caused entirely by the foolish decision to tax corporate income. Drop the corporate taxes -- or even reduce the rate significantly -- and that money will come flooding back, because it's not actually doing its owners any good offshore. Instead tax the shareholders on their gains. They can't so easily hide offshore because they actually want to live here.

Comment Re:Robots, robots everywhere! (Score 1) 341

paid for by taxing the owners of the capital infrastructure (i.e. the robots) that do all of the production

You're making a crazy assumption that the owners of the infrastructure will agree to voluntarily pay taxes in order to support useless masses.

As long as the masses have the vote, and therefore the ability to command police and military forces, there's no "voluntary" about it. That said, as long as there's still room for making more money, even with the taxes, they'll do it.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 341

Fine, a massive capital gains tax on dividends, on resource extraction licenses, and a massive tax on any income over $500,000, including any "interest-free loans", shares, and any other financial instrument.

Rather than a flat "over $500K", the scale should be graduated, up to very high rates at the top end. Also, it's worth noting that interest-free loans, etc., are already treated as income by the IRS.

If you think taxing corporations is bad, then tax the living fuck out of those that are making the money.

You make it sound punitive. No need for that. In fact, you want to be careful not to remove the incentive for generating even high

Oh, and repeal all corporate personhood. All shareholders will be liable for the misdeeds of the corporation, up to and including imprisonment for death and injury a corporation causes, and seizure of shareholders' assets in the case of insolvency or financial penalty beyond current cash and asset reserves.

Oh, hell no. I'm a shareholder and so are you if you have any kind of retirement investments. There are very good reasons for limiting shareholder liability. If you want to hold someone criminally liable for severe misdeeds, the target you want is the executives who ordered the misdeeds, not the shareholders.

Comment Re:It doesn't take 7 billion people (Score 1) 341

But keep in mind that not all civilizations are technological. Humanity existed for 250K years without computers.

Not in any lifestyle that I would want to live. Nor that I'd call "civilization", at least not for any but the top 0.01%. The GP mentioned millenia of dark ages... but the dark ages were actually significantly better for the average human than earlier ages -- including the peaks of the earlier great civilizations, all of which were built on the backs of vast numbers of slave laborers. Serfdom sucked, but it was better than slavery. Serfs had more rights, were better fed, etc.

I don't disagree with your basic argument, just the part that pre-technological civilization wasn't so bad. It was bad. But there's absolutely no reason to think we're going back to it. The robots are going to dramatically improve productivity yet again and, combined with ongoing technological advancement, usher in an age of abundance in which there aren't enough jobs because there's simply no need for everyone to work. I'm confident humanity will be able to find other ways to keep itself occupied.

Comment Re:Robots, robots everywhere! (Score 1) 341

Your ignorance blinds you. The fact is damn near every fucking example you've brought forth here is at risk within the next 15 - 20 years.

Think about that before you rant again, because much like the rest of society, you have no solution for it.

Solution for what? What is the problem?

The coming wave of automation is going to create an unparalleled era of abundance. The reason many jobs will disappear is because there will be no need for humans to labor. This isn't a problem, this is awesome!

We do have to figure out a way to transition from our current scarcity-based economic structure, with incentives that are focused on making sure as many people as possible work, to a post-scarcity economy that has no need of such stark and powerful labor incentives (e.g. work or starve). My guess is that this will take the form of a universal basic income, paid for by taxing the owners of the capital infrastructure (i.e. the robots) that do all of the production. But because automation will dramatically lower the cost of goods and services, this should be easy to do. The only real obstacles are getting everyone to understand the need to make the transition, and handling the timing so that the need to work is phased out in step with the reduced demand for work.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 341

yes, it's going to be funded by taxing the robots, or more likely the commercial entities that employ the robot

That's a bad idea. Corporations never actually pay taxes, they pass the cost to employees, suppliers, customers and investors, in some mix that seems good to them. What you really want to tax is the owners of the capital, the investors. Not only do they not have an easy way to shift the cost onto someone else, they also have a much more difficult time shopping tax jurisdictions to get the best deal... because that requires them to actually live in those other jurisdictions. Well, okay, so the super rich can probably skate around that a little bit by living officially in one place while actually spending their time in others, but not as easily as corporations can, and the super rich don't own the bulk of the capital. Most of it is owned by the upper middle class and lower upper class, largely in their retirement savings accounts.

Taxing people, rather than corporations, allows lawmakers to target the taxes where they want them, rather than letting the corporations figure out who to pass it to. Because at the end of the day it will always be people who pay them anyway.

Comment Re:Burn it up??? WTF?? (Score 1) 231

Interesting. Is the issue just passing through the Van Allen belts around the Earth, or would more shielding be needed in a lunar orbit, too? If it's good enough for lunar orbit as-is, I wonder if it would be okay to execute the (years-long, I'm sure) transfer maneuver uncrewed, and then resume crewing it once it's beyond the danger zone.

Comment Re:Private Offices (Score 1) 336

I disagree. I think members of the same team should be located together, rather than isolated in private offices. That way, if you need to bounce an idea off of a teammate, all you need to do is to turn around and talk, rather than having to get up and look for them.

... and disrupt three other people in the process. Because, you know, their work isn't as important as your "bouncing ideas".

Besides, a few years ago, someone came up with the concept of instant messaging, which not only is nice for short messages, but can also tell you whether someone is available without having to get up and look for them.

In my opinion, the best approach is a combination of instant messaging, good headphones and an open plan office.

When you want to ask a colleague about something, or bounce an idea off of them, IM them to find out if they're interruptible. If so, you can both spin your chair around and chat. Others nearby are unaffected because they have headphones on and can't hear, but they can easily be pulled in if they're needed. The close proximity and lack of walls also tends to deter slacking (e.g. posting on /.) to some extent, and it enables random conversations that start over coffee runs, lunch, etc. better than if everyone is in offices.

A key to making this work really well, though, is a strong cultural rule against interrupting without asking via IM, and you should never include the question in the IM unless you are pretty certain it can be answered with approximately zero think time. If you ask a question that requires thought or research, the recipient feels an obligation to drop what they're doing to address your question. I usually send something like "Are you interruptible?", or for some of the people I work with closely and who understand it, I just send "MI" (for "maskable interrupt"). They respond with "y" or "n" as appropriate... and keep the IM window open in the corner of one of their screens (multiple, large screens are another must) as a reminder to ping me back when they reach a good interruption point.

Actually, my situation is a little different because I work remotely. At times I've had an always-on video conference going to provide a virtual connection between my home office and my team's open plan workspace. I really need to get that set up again. With that in place, though, the same rules apply, except that I replace headphones with muting the VC and playing music on the speakers on my PC (which is needed to drown out noise from the rest of my house anyway).

Comment Re:Private sector will increase costs. (Score 1) 154

If it costs money to do something and you hand it over to the private sector it will cost money plus profit to make it therefore more.

Wrong. If that were true, the USSR would have economically destroyed the US. That's just one of millions of examples. It's not the case that *everything* is best done by private enterprise, but if the primary goal is to serve the customer at minimum cost, competitive private industry is the absolute best way we know to achieve it. Yes, companies need to generate a profit, but that profit is almost always dwarfed by the opportunities for reducing costs by being more efficient.

In a competitive market, finding a way to reduce development and production costs increases profit in the short term, which is why companies work really hard to do it. Then in the longer term competitors adopt the same cost-reduction strategies (or better ones) and lower their prices in order to take business from their competitors, lowering the cost to buyers. At the same time, competitors look for ways to make their products more appealing to attract buyers. This virtuous competitive cycle in nearly all cases results in lower prices for better products because -- and this is the key point -- the need for improvement is relentless, never-ending.

Government agencies have different incentives. Not that government employees can't be interested in efficiency, but the organizational incentives are not focused on minimizing cost and maximizing service in order to maximize competitiveness. There is no competition. Government organizations are focused on compliance with the regulations that define the reason for their existence. If the required duties are performed within the funding allocated, they've met their goal and there's no reason to try to seek better ways to do their job.

Note that in both cases I'm speaking of idealized models. Many markets are not competitive (for example, I'm not sure a truly competitive market in health care can exist, because the complexity of the products and services exceeds the ability of consumers to buy intelligently, plus there are serious moral issues around tying availability of care to ability to pay) and private employees have an individual motivation to sit on their hands as much as possible. Many government employees are focused and driven and just as relentless about improving what they can as any business. But on the whole, results align with incentives and private enterprise has an incentive to improve that does not exist in government agencies, even those with open-ended missions.

There's a place for both private and public sector organizations in fulfilling social goals, but correctly allocating responsibilities to them is complicated and requires a deep understanding of what each does best and what each does poorly. Incredibly simplistic views like yours are not and effective guide.

Comment Re:Burn it up??? WTF?? (Score 1) 231

I do also like one of the previous ideas about shuttling it over to the moon. I just question how much energy it would need to overcome earths gravity and break free from it's orbit. It is a bit massive.

Well, it's already moving at about 70% of escape velocity. With something like an ion engine and plenty of time, I don't see any reason the remaining delta-vee couldn't be added.

Comment Re: Not everyone is happy... (Score 1) 107

Copyright licensing is ONLY assignable in writing.

Copyright is only assignable in writing. The law doesn't require that copyright licenses be formal, written documents. Courts have upheld verbal and even implied licenses. This is a very good thing for open source, actually, since hardly any projects get written licenses from contributors. The mere act of sending a pull request (or sending a patch to a mailing list, or...) is taken as an implied license of the author's contribution, under the license or licenses that the project is using.

Also, good luck getting approval from all 400 - after 20 years some are going to be dead.

That only matters if the heirs object. In this case it's hard to see why they would. The only rational (and I use the word loosely) motivation I can see is a deep-seated dislike of the GPL, since the only real effect of this license change will be to make it completely clear that GPL programs can link OpenSSL.

Comment Re: Will increase risks of cargo hold fires (Score 1) 277

"There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld

But are there unknown knowns? Are there things we know but don't know that we know?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Comment Re:Lock her up already (Score 1) 86

Tax write-off. He knows the shares are worthless, so might as well realize the loss and use it to offset gains elsewhere.

That makes no sense. Effective tax management means finding ways to report every possible loss, not creating actual losses just so you can report them. Creating $100 in actual losses to offset $100 in gains elsewhere lowers your tax liability by somewhere between $15 and $40, depending, which means you're actually throwing away $60-$85 in the process. Better to keep the gain and pay the tax.

There may be reasons to want to realize the loss *now*, rather than in the future, but that could have been done by selling the shares for more money -- assuming buyers could be found. Perhaps Murdoch believes that no one would be willing to buy his shares for more money? That seems unlikely. Hell, I'll give him $2. I have no reason to believe that the shares are worth that much, but the odds that they are are probably higher than the odds that I'm going to win the lottery and I have bought a lottery ticket a time or two.

Something else is going on here. Perhaps Murdoch has a personal friendship with Holmes, or some other non-financial motivation. But it makes no sense to artificially inflate your real losses in order reduce your tax liability, because the reduction in tax liability will always be less than the losses.

Slashdot Top Deals

In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves: the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy.

Working...