Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Here's more credible evidence of Trump-Russia t (Score 1) 768

Regarding your comments about Trump: the fact that the only accusation they managed to dig up against him is that some of his businesses failed and that he's been sued is a pretty good indication that he's clean. His conglomerate participates in dozens if not hundreds of ventures. Some fail, some succeed. That's how business works. And virtually every successful business in the US has been sued... even the smallest business you can imagine would be foolish not to have some legal representation on retainer. That's just the society we live in. The barrier to suing someone with deep pockets is very low because the cost of litigation is universally larger than the cost of settling. Trump had failed businesses and there were times when he was in a technical bankruptcy (the value of his assets was lower than the value of his debt), but that did not mean that he was in an actual bankruptcy (failing to make payments to creditors). Orange County was in the same "bankruptcy " at some point during the 90's. And yet they never failed to provide any of the services. US government is in a constant state of such "bankruptcy" because it never collects as much in taxes as it spends (not even in today's world where it has record-high tax receipts).

Oh, and don't take this to be a cue to talk about "Clinton balancing the budget." Because I actually remember that year and I remember that it was

double booking

the same revenue (which was not even received yet) which allowed them to make that claim.

As for Trump's integrity, he actually bothers to get a divorce when he leaves his wife (unlike the Clintons staying in a marriage out of political convenience). Divorce is the honest way to leave your wife in case any one forgot.

Comment Re:Here's more credible evidence of Trump-Russia t (Score 1) 768

Her only support comes from uninformed or zombified. And the thinking people are only supporting her because they see money in it or they are scared of her. Her power grows just like the power of any two-bit dictator. She uses power to gain more power. This is why we have term limits. Although she obviously found a way around them.

Comment Re:Here's more credible evidence of Trump-Russia t (Score 3, Insightful) 768

No one supports Clintons unless they are paid too or threatened. Her utter disregard for the rule of law and use of raw power to intimidate her opponents is so apparent that the only question is why is no one is asking for RICO statue to be applied against her. She doesn't just breaks laws. She is running a criminal organization and uses political intimidation and bribery to push for more power. The only difference between her and the mob is that the mob did their deeds in hiding and Clinton does it in plain view. And lest anyone thinks that Trump will lose, he has a history of entering business arenas dominated by the mob and winning despite playing clean and not becoming a mobster himself. He has beaten these types of people before. If we are lucky, he'll do it again.

Comment Re:Here's more credible evidence of Trump-Russia t (Score 1) 768

The Clinton astroturfing is strong with this one.

Very much so. Putin's political power comes from opposing oligarchs (who were self-made billionaires in the post-Soviet collapse). It is the fact that so many people couldn't adjust to the market-based economy which fueled frustration with the few who did. His power is maintained almost exclusively through dictatorship-style extra-judicial confiscation of wealth created by oligarchs and handing it over to his political cronies. These cronies are much better described as apparatchiks than "oligarchs."

Comment There is a name for this type of "defense" (Score 4, Insightful) 768

It's called shooting the messenger. Even if Russia did hack the DNC servers, what they chose to release still demonstrates inappropriate behavior by the DNC chair. Even if Trump's candidacy benefits Russia, it doesn't change the fact that DNC chair undermining democratic elections (with a small "d") doesn't help The United States.

Comment Re: Question (Score 1) 506

What you say would be true if any form of addiction were a choice. But it's not. Even addictive behavior is governed by brain chemistry so it is, in fact, chemically induced. To assume that without disincentives people would not experiment with habit-forming destructive addictive behaviors is unjustified. And addiction (by definition) takes hold as a result of initial experimenting with addictive behavior. If less people were disincentivised to be addicted, then more people would become addicted. It's not a statement about a cause and a necessary effect. It's a statement about a cause of a statistical bias in one direction or another direction.

Comment Re: competition (Score 1) 506

If anything, just take away the parents' basic income if they have too many kids. The disincentive would probably work very well.

Not for the kids. If the point of basic income is to alleviate suffering of the least able, then taking it away from the care takers of children would also accomplish the opposite of the intended goal.

Comment Re:aha (Score 1) 140

Even within a society which has a very cheap price of labor there can exist people whose labor is very costly. Your example was inappropriate because it was an example of automating away jobs of just such people within China. China is not automating away the jobs of the people with lowest wages. It only makes sense to automate away the wages of those whose skills are in high demand, but who have little political sway or control over the process (highly-skill non-manager positions). So your example in no way whatsoever disproved the point that "automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people".

This assertion is a load of crap

Fuck you with a cherry on top. I am just not in a mood for dumb asses who think they know something, but who in reality are cherry picking facts to prove points which are utterly wrong. You are the prime example of why "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." If you knew less, then at least you wouldn't have the confidence to assert the dumb ass shit you are asserting. But because you know a few things, but can't piece them together, you think you are coming from a position of reason. You are not. You are coming from a knee-jerk towards your favorite pipe dream based on cherry picked facts.

Comment competition (Score 1) 506

Anyone who thinks that competition can removed from work-incentive process completely disregards the fact that sexual conquest is present in all societies other than theocracies. So to remove all sources of competitiveness a society would need to introduce a strict moral code (Soviet Union certainly tried). This would mean suppressing natural human urges and would lead to development of authoritarian elements within the society. And authoritarian institutions would attract the most aggressive (most competitive) individuals. The end result would be a totalitarian regime existing for the sake of preserving its power rather than the originally intended purpose of social progress.

Comment Re:aha (Score 1) 140

If human labour is so cheap then why did Foxconn recently say they've automated away 60000 jobs?

A classic example of how to make an argument seem like it addresses a point, while in fact it just makes an entirely different point, is to counter an argument which draws a comparison between 2 values with an argument which talks about one absolute value; or the other way around -- to counter a point about an absolute value with an argument about a comparative value.

I said automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people. You countered that "Foxconn recently say they've automated away 60000 jobs". It may mean that in this particular instance of Foxconn people were more expensive than the cost of automation. That does not extrapolate to conclusion that it would work out that way with all or even many industries in China. Human labor there is still very cheap. In most industries it's still cheaper than the cost of machines. A few examples where that's not the case do not prove the opposite point.

Comment Re:Universal health care and low cost education (Score 1) 140

Universal health care and low cost education are needed in the USA.

Low cost health care and universal education are needed in the USA. There. Fixed it for you. What's the point of cheap college education for people who fail to learn much during free public school education? And what's the point of universal coverage if there aren't enough doctors to provide the care?

Slashdot Top Deals

Help fight continental drift.

Working...