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. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Growth Mania (Score 1) 28

I believe that's the point-- that "there's plenty of wealth and resources on this planet for everyone." If you're not working to create more wealth through growth then you're being left behind. When you get complacent and fail to grow (i.e. innovate), your competitors will eventually cut into your market and you lose. See A&P, IBM, etc. Fortune 500 1955 (Hint-- many of those no longer exist).

Comment Re:Theoretically (Score 1) 172

I never claimed that the USA has a free market. It's been falling on economic freedom rankings for the past 15 years. Heck, Chile has more economic freedom than the US. My point was that regulations create barriers to entry by favoring established companies. These barriers to entry result in worse service for higher prices. You proved my point: the "lobbyists for the scumbag telecos" use the government to stop people from "pay[ing] for their area to have fiber and towers." That's pretty much the definition of crony capitalism. However, you seem to conflate crony capitalism with "unfettered capitalism" (which, by the definition of unfettered, much mean without government intervention). You can't have corruption if the market is "unfettered." When the government is not involved, how can you claim crony capitalism? I obviously support a free market, not the corporatism we currently have the United States. We agree there. Either way, I'll read the FEE article, but as that's a site I read daily, I'm pretty sure we're already on the same page.

Comment Re:give them green cards (Score 1) 271

That's a pretty interesting way to look at it. I have always viewed every discussion about H-1B on Slashdot with the assumption that the only reason people complained about them is because they're salty about the competition. However, it seems I misjudged the H-1B program specifically-- the truth is that I thought it was an alternative path for immigration (which, based on your comment, it seems not to be). Of course, real immigration improves life overall. The immigrant definitely wins, plus the employer (who has to pay less) wins and his customer wins. The few who lose their jobs will just have to go for the next best job they can find. Sometimes, it even forces people to go out and find work they're better fitted for. It's called specialization of labor.

Comment Re:Theoretically (Score 1, Insightful) 172

You see, the free market fixes that too. Not having cell phone service would be a possible minus for people deciding to move out into the middle of nowhere; they might instead decide, "I want to live in civilization. Maybe I should pay slightly more to get a home somewhere a little more urban." Regulating cell phone companies to serve places with low population density is like telling restaurants, "If you're going to have a location in the city, we're going to require you to also build a location in every rural area within 50 miles." What do you think would happen? Your choice of restaurants would become very limited. Some would say "oligopolistic." That's what has happened to cell service. The government has created artificial barriers to entry and everyone (except those who are in rural areas and companies that can afford to comply) loses.

Comment Regulations (Score 2, Insightful) 62

Companies such as Airbnb and Uber serve to show just how regulated most industries are. When they waltz into an existing industry with services just different enough to escape regulations, the suffocating nature of special interest-driven regulation becomes apparent. Entrenched taxi companies demand licensing restrictions. Hotels demand regulation and taxes. Unions demand classification of contractors as employees (and people realize they aren't so different from each other -- employees are just special contractors with government-mandated benefits). The New York decision is a classic example of special interests aiming to limit competition and creative destruction.

Comment Re:is 2020 lbs. a ton (Score 1) 56

Looks like they're talking about metric tons. This page says that it'll take a total of 1,999,200 grams of metal (9,996 g Gold; 1,232,840 g Silver; 736,372 g Copper; 16,660 g Zinc; 3,332 g Tin), which is about 2 metric tons. At market prices, that's 114,781,936 yen or $1,019,462. Guess they're saying it'll take four times that weight of actual phones to get that much metal ("The production process will reduce this eight tonnes down to around two").

Submission + - President Obama Signs Legislation Establishing Information Control Agency

stephenmac7 writes: President Obama has recently signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which "authorizes FY2017 appropriations and sets forth policies regarding the military activities of the Department of Defense (DOD), military construction, and the national security programs of the Department of Energy (DOE)." Perhaps more notably, it establishes a new Department of State agency, the Global Engagement Center, that some claim may be the beginning of an Orwellian propaganda agency. Its task is to “understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation aimed at undermining United States national security interests" and support “the development and dissemination of fact-based narratives and analysis to counter propaganda and disinformation directed at the United States and” its partners and allies. It is also authorized to gather information from intelligence agencies and financially support various groups, apparently of its own choosing, including “civil society groups, media content providers, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and development centers, private companies, or academic institutions.”

Comment Re:Not the first time they've done this (Score 1) 124

Whatever you want to call it, it's obviously taking someone else's rightfully owned property without their permission. They (or someone who gave it to them willingly) have produced something of value and earned that wealth. To take it is wrong-- lawful or not.

The great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one, the above way of production and exchange, he called the "economic means." The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizure of another's goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed "the political means" to wealth. It should be clear that the peaceful use of reason and energy in production is the "natural" path for man: the means for his survival and prosperity on this earth. It should be equally clear that the coercive, exploitative means is contrary to natural law; it is parasitic, for instead of adding to production, it subtracts from it. The "political means" siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer's incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. In the long run, the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source of his own supply. But not only that; even in the short-run, the predator is acting contrary to his own true nature as a man.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. -- Nero Wolfe

Working...