Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:I hope this trend continues. (Score 1) 298

They and their children are raised to execute suboptimal reasoning.

I don't think suboptimal reasoning has anything to do with it. For the most part, ignoring people who are poor because of some disability, most poor people are poor because they were not taught good money management skills by their parents, and therefore made bad financial decisions at every possible opportunity by doing what their parents did, with each bad financial decision making things worse for them.

I think that if you presented money management skills to those same kids early on, they would easily be able to handle the actual reasoning required to recognize that those skills are valuable and are a way to avoid being poor long-term. So the real problem is that nobody bothers to give them the facts required to start that reasoning process in the first place, and by the time they realize it, they're deep in debt and their bad habits are so ingrained that it is hard to change them.

We haven't had true home economics classes in high school since my parents were kids, and it shows. We need to bring that back. However, even if we do bring that back, it still isn't enough. IMO, money management skills need to be taught in school starting in first grade when kids learn how to count currency. That way, kids who don't learn those skills from their parents still stand a fighting chance. All it takes is one teacher to change a child's future.

Comment Re: Good for him? (Score 1) 56

We have an asset tax based on real property. It's called property taxes. We also have taxes on some other goods that are based on transactions, like sales taxes, and in some places taxes on vehicles for registering for license plates that's based on a percentage of the vehicle's initial purchase price, depreciated over time. Thing is, if one documents one's purchases and all of the tax paid (ie, keeps receipts) one can deduct those taxes paid from one's federal income tax filing.

Taxing non-profit-making holdings is difficult because if the system was set up properly to begin with, most of those now-stagnant holdings were taxed when they were initially assembled, and we don't like double-taxation. It's also difficult to identify where the wealth is and how much is there without it moving, it's comparatively easier to see transactions.

Comment Trolling and Fake News = same (Score 3, Interesting) 114

The basic problem is that we have not realized that Internet's anonymity's lets people say anything they want to.

It is compounded by humanity's innate trust, and the misunderstanding of exactly how full of garbage the internet is.

The existence of valid news sources on the internet make it worse - they give the appearance of validity to the general internet.

To make it even worse, Pravda, the Soviet Union's old ministry of propaganda, changed it's name to RT, and hired a bunch of anonymous posters, making it one of the single most effective propaganda organizations the world has ever seen.

Their stated goals of disrupting the US, breaking the European Union up, and retaking the Ukraine are having an unprecedented success.


Comment Re:Ambiguity? (Score 1) 298

Anything ? No. Not at all.

But some things ? Yes.

National defense being a better example of this than roads due to the need to reduce conflicts of interest. But I should point out that rent seeking is a notorious example of a thing that frequently requires public funding (and supporting regulation) to exist. The AT&T monopoly probably delayed design and implementation of the eventual internet considerably due to the interference of a state-mandated and supported monopoly with little interest in technology development of this sort (their computer development was in a sector where they experienced competition).

The internet fits in that middle group. Lots of large private networks were built around the same time - but they didn't take off like the internet.

That's pretty strong evidence right there that the internet would have happened anyway.

Designing the technology was not the hard part, in fact some of those large privately owned networks had technology that was, arguably, far more advanced than the internet technology at the time. Yet they didn't become the internet - because to BE an internet you needed a hands-off approach, and a willingness to let everybody use it and evolve it and expand it in all sorts of ways without trying to make money out of them all. A central controller or owner would have prevented it from succeeding. The internet was the exact OPPOSITE of a tragedy of the commons - it was a technology that couldn't happen UNLESS it was a commons.

Again doesn't require public funding to do that.

Really, what is the point of claiming that one needs public funding to have an internet? We conveniently can't have a pure counterexample due to the prevalence of promiscuous government spending. It also ignores the variety and extent of private networks that were being developed at the time, some which became part of the internet which as I already noted is a strong indication to the contrary. It's a variation of the "a few drops dirty the ocean" argument. Government spending is so prevalent that anything can be tainted with it. For example, you then went on to claim that public funding was instrumental to the development of Linux merely because Linus Torvalds, the founder of Linux had a free college education in Finland.

My view on such things is that when you uncritically support public spending because the internet (computers, lasers, etc), you're opening the door to all sorts of waste and harms from unaccountable public spending simply because you aren't paying attention. In particular, we have a variety of massive projects that don't do useful things, like $400 billion on a poor jet fighter or $100 billion for a space station that barely does science. Or trillions spent across the developed world to transfer wealth from working people who need it to elderly who don't.

Comment Re:Troll post (Score 4, Insightful) 114

Yup. Basically, "we asked a bunch of people to predict the future, and there was a significant degree of pessimism, although there was also a plurality of optimists."

What meaning are we supposed to gather from this? It's not even a well-characterized sample—it's just "we asked a bunch of people with strong opinions." This is not news—it's noise.

Comment Re: Where's the news? (Score 1) 261

Well... that's... arguable.
It was pre-Youtube and for all practical purposes even pre-Google. Or if you prefer it that way - pre 9/11.

But the main reason is that I simply never watched it. No Nickelodeon. Back then OR now.
Plus... most western animation from that time was rather off-putting to me. AND I was just discovering anime back then.

Comment Re: They really don't understand. (Score 5, Insightful) 239

Because "math" translates as "hard", "discrete mathematics" translates as "incomprehensible" (i.e. super-hard) and "coding" translates as "being smart" and "making money with magic and chat apps/games".

Don't you watch the internets?
You want your kids to grow up to be Steve Jobses and Mark Zuckerbergses (i.e. rich) - not some math teacher teaching idiots how to add or whatever it is they do with math.

Comment Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score 1) 378

Obviously, privacy of police officers is less equal than that of Planned Parenthood officials.

And you have a problem with that why? Police officers on duty don't have the same expectation of privacy that a private non profit and its officials have.

Are PP's employees "entirely different" from policemen?

What law enforcement powers do PP employees have again?

receiving even a little bit of tax money changes everything.

So PP employees should be able to go out and write tickets for speeding and stuff because they get a little tax money?

I notice you don't mention any applicable law. If we just go off of the vague assertion that it "changes everything" rather than a concrete law, then there are plenty of negative ways we could interpret that which make matters worse.

From what I'm reading here, this case doesn't look good for the activists. They committed fraud, they covertly videoed someone (which incidentally may be illegal to do even when the target is a police officer), and libeled Planned Parenthood afterward. The first two are felonies. The last a civil tort.

Comment Re:"Green" technologies aren't sufficient. (Score 2) 211

Or we could, you know, build clean garbage incineration units like they have in Europe which are actually net producers of energy.

Coal burning is actually a net producer of energy too. And if burning trash "cleanly" is so awesome as a power source, then why not dig up some of our monstrous trash heaps and burn those? Cleanly, of course.

BRB I need to throw some batteries away. /s

Slashdot Top Deals

You have a massage (from the Swedish prime minister).