Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 209

You don't tell each other what to do but you want to control everybody else for your personal gain, a sign of a true collectivist is a good dose of hypocrisy. Atheism doesn't make you any more or any less susceptible to mass delusions, , USSR was based on atheism. I am an atheist, I am also anti collectivist and I find it rude to tell others what to do. You, on the other hand like to tell others what to do, that is your collectivist nature and atheism does nothing to get rid of that rudeness as you call it.

What you really are is an opportunist who sees people as resources to be manipulated and used to achieve your personal goals, which is why your stated ideology is that of some type of a socialist. You want others to drink the poison for you, be a sport, set an example.

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 209

Read the thread: might makes right is the argument I am objecting to. Collectivism used to provide power based on numbers. Automation and technology equalizes the odds, 10 people against 1 is not that bad if 1 has a few robots on his side.

As to Ayn Rand, I appreciate her philosophy and writing, it is great, but I never needed it to reach my own conclusions decades ago. I only read her books a few years back after hearing so much about them. She was a great philosopher AFAIC, a pretty good writer as well, but the ideas were always here, with or without her books. As to violence - that is the argument of the collectivists, not of the individualists.

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 209

The retard here is you, the millions of the productive people can afford the tech ( and they have enough of it as is ) to annihilate the rioting masses, of course the most efficient tools have already been deployed. Urbanization and specialization ensures that the ones with little to no productive capacity will starve to death and will kill off each other. This is not your farmer society, where people could live off the land. Vast majority of people today will die of starvation if the stores are not resupplied for a few weeks. Beyond that we are talking about automation here. Protection has is and will be automated more and more, where it would make no sense not to acquire it to put down riots and attacks by the crowds. A mix of machine guns and droids will probably be effective enough. A sleeping biological agent added to some popular food can probably wait to be activated to take down the hosts. It is not that far fetched, especially distribution should be easy enough to handle, people buy whatever is the cheapest, so make it cheap and see it spread.

But never mind all that, the productive people can have the police, the army, the politicians on their side because they can pay.

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 209

There are more than enough people in the productive category for that purpose. Beyond that the technology is getting more advanced, the gene selection and mutation can be manipulated artificially, so this argument will cease to exist soon if it hasn't already. There enough people in the productive spectrum to keep the species going , I am more than certain of it. There are millions of business owners in the world.

Comment Re:Our Future. (Score 1) 209

So it should be done covertly, government needs to be allowed to overextend itself, letting the money become a worthless fiat that eventually loses the ability to buy weapons and to pay for the walking talking military meat. Once the government is rotten and weak enough you don't need a shooting war to take it down.

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 209

Go ahead and explain why should some, those with the capacity to produce be supporting others, who do not have that capacity? Just try not to use 'they will kill you and take your stuff' argument, USSR tried it, fell apart, more importantly those with the capacity to produce also do have (and will have more) capacity to protect themselves. Animals that cannot feed themselves die off, that is the nature of things. Of course they can try and steal, that is expected. Of course those, who have something of value will protect themselves, that is also the nature of things. But to feed and to shelter and to entertain your would be assailants because they want what you have? That IS perversion. I suppose *some* level of voluntary charity always existed and will exist in the future, however beyond some voluntary charity and beyond the threat of violence what else do you actually think is there? Religion? There is no god, religion is a useful political tool to keep the poor at bay (a threat of everlasting violence after death scares a large number of human animals). So what is your idea, why should a newly born person be entitled to the productive output of an existing person?

Comment Re:Our Future. (Score 1) 209

Good, do that. I, on the other hand, am preparing my kids to live outside of the boundaries enforced by the system the rest of you are making sure to keep in power. The future is not a single system of control but fragmentation of power and decentralization. Automation only assures that, automation ensures a more free future rather a more oppressive one. The age of the automobile made people freer from control of the oppressive government than we would have been without the cars. The age of automation will make people freer from other types of control that we are experiencing today.

Comment Re:deploy this, and you arent a state anymore. (Score 3, Insightful) 147

But wait a moment, were you under impression that people a are *not* expendable trash for the purposes of any and all governments out there? People are expendable trash, they are to be taxed, sent to fight in wars and military conflicts that are one way or another profitable to those in the government offices.

Comment Re:Take whoever came up with this (Score 1) 124

I can see why American businesses would want to monitor their employees for insurance purposes, not only to try and prevent slaking off. With all the ambulance chasers, sexual harassment lawsuit, firing related lawsuits, etc., makes sense. If the laws are such that the employer can be taken to court just to try and get money out of an employer, this service can provide some level of protection by presenting some type of evidence that may quickly prove many allegations to be lies.

Comment Re:Good! (Score 1) 76

The real reason not to tax income of anybody for any purpose of-course is the moral one: slavery should not be authorized even for government to engage in.

Economically speaking it is also the worst thing that can be done, you get less of what you tax, so if you tax income you get less income because production is more expensive.

Slashdot Top Deals

Did you know that for the price of a 280-Z you can buy two Z-80's? -- P.J. Plauger