Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Well Trump has one thing right (Score 1) 539

"the only way to combat it is by some incorruptible authority guarding against it with an eagle eye, and taking relentless vengeance against it when it does occur."

Exactly. The only problem being that such an "incorruptible authority" neither exists nor can exist, therefore we need a different system, one that understands that corruption is part of human nature and doesn't requires a subset of humans in specific positions to be incorruptible to work.

Comment Re:Well Trump has one thing right (Score 1) 539

"Ideally, democracy would be the mediating factor, ensuring that government limited capitalism to the extent that such limits benefited the majority of people, resisting both the tyranny of government and the tyranny of monopoly capitalism and oligarchy"

But then, specially from Goebbels onwards, we have marketing. "Pure" capitalism/liberalism sits on three basic assumptions in order to work:
1) Hobbes' "man is wolf to man". Any political system we want to design need to take this into account or will fail. And this capitalism seems to be quite spot on or else basically anything would be better than capitalistic democracies, be it communism or anarchism or even dictatorship.
2) Agents within the system act (on their own selfishness, see point above) rationally and are perfectly informed. Here start the problems. While "people" are more or less the way we have always been, marketing as a science has successfully evolved with the explicit goal of understanding and manipulating people for a particular gain and now can quite effectively make masses to act irrationally and on biased information.
3) Despite point one, capitalism expects that those in command are somehow different in that both they are incorruptible and what they have (power) is not to be put in the marketplace just like anything else. And that's what is utterly wrong. USA's founding fathers more or less saw this, therefore the "checks and balances" trying to make their corruptibility as ineffective as possible but it becomes obvious they came sadly short.

So, in the end, capitalism/liberalism as a socio-political system has shown itself to be better fitted for the advancement of society to what we, humans, really are than other theoretical frameworks but it's still too short to cope with the task: "better fitted" still doesn't equates to "good enough". The faster we understand this, the sooner we can start looking for better alternatives.

Comment Re:Well Trump has one thing right (Score 1) 539

"Umm, it's NOT "unfettered capitalism" if you can buy governments."

Yeah... because you say so. Any system goes the way it goes even if you try to put unreasonable limits to it. Capitalism is rightly based on the observed fact that we all are egotistic and takes that to the advantage of the common good (let's allow everyone to work for their own egotistic profit and the invisible hand will make that into the advancement of society as a whole). But then, you go with "hey! but this system we already understood as being composed of egotistic and corruptible individuals will only work if a subset of them, those making the rules, are *not* egotistic and corruptible". Surprise, surprise, those in command are moved by the same interests and profit motives as anyone else.

"the kind of government you can buy monopolies and such from is strong enough that capitalism is pretty much automatically fettered by the government."

And then remember that when the government is not strong enough for that, power ends up concentrating in other individuals/organizations that make their strength to be the rule of the land -go, i.e. to Somalia to see how well the "not strong enough government" works.

"So what you're describing as "unfettered capitalism" is actually "corrupt government" pointing fingers away from themselves..."

No: just the natural and unavoidable evolution of capitalism to its last consequences.

Comment Re:Well Trump has one thing right (Score 1) 539

"The word is evolve, not evolution."

Yes, you are right. English is not my mother language and I made that mistake. Sorry.

"And neither capitalism nor communism is what corruption comes from. Corruption comes from human nature"

Yes, that's true. But, supposedly, "ideal" capitalism works *because* it takes into account that fact: it based on the notion that somehow, individual selfishness can be made to work for the common good.

"the only way to combat it is by some incorruptible authority guarding against it with an eagle eye"

Exactly that: the "ideal" free market (more or less the Adam Smith way) hits the bull eye in the "hey! let's take into account that man is wolf to man, so let's see what can we do with that" but then it commits the stupid mistake of forgetting that and setting the system in a way that, well, everybody is corruptible and egotistic *but* those making the rules: you can buy this and that at "its market value" except politicians. Ha!

Comment Re:Well Trump has one thing right (Score 3, Interesting) 539

"Right now the US has a huge crony capitalism problem"

Back in the tycoon days you had basically unfettered capitalism. Because of that, big tycoons were able to set their way even to buy government -and that's how you got today's "crony capitalism problem".

Now: is there a way unfettered capitalism doesn't evolution into crony capitalism? I don't think so.

Comment Re: It *can* be right... (Score 1) 126

"Yes, I get what you're trying to say, but it's a philosophical point only, which is another way of saying it's no bloody point at all."

It's philosophical only since it obviously is a mind experiment, but it wouldn't be philosophical at all for the astronauts: for the first one the Earth would expend millions and the astronaut would survive; the second one would die alone (without costing a dime) and the difference between both cases would certainly be our knowledge of (special) relativity and what "when" means within its frame.

Yes: it is "philosophical" what happens out of the light cone of an event; no, it doesn't mean we can't make meaningful assertions about events at relativistic distances/speeds.

Comment Re:It *can* be right... (Score 1) 126

"Anyway, adding a radio into the mix is pure fluff, and so is the notion of precision. Neither say anything about when it is meaningful to say "Z happened" according to any particular "reference frame.""

So, say, the astronaut is at Mars and suddenly he says to himself "Damn! I have food for only four (earth) years and I'll starve after that" and then he immediately presses the big red button that will summon the cavalry to the rescue back from Earth.

Now, on the other hand, our hero is on a planet orbiting Alfa Centaury when the same situation happens.

Now, tell me again there's anything meaningful to say about when "Z happened" for both scenarios from Earth's particular reference frame.

Comment Re:It *can* be right... (Score 1) 126

"Move far enough from earth and you can follow WW2 radio traffic live and relive Hiroshiima as if you were there.."

Except, of course, you can't.

Which is exactly the point.

On top of that, I can ASSURE you that no, an hypothetical observer far enough to still knowing nothing about Hiroshima won't experience it as the unlucky ones that were in fact there.

Comment Re:The unwritten part of the headline... (Score 1) 69

"If they would come up with solid math taking into consideration the projected indirect effects on future sales and brand, then maybe I'd give them a pass."

I, of course, see your point, but playing devil's advocate, see what you do: you ask for a financial analysis (that you yourself accepted to be very difficult to do, if not impossible) on a non-expenditure while you don't ask for it on an expenditure. Does it even make sense?

I mean, you didn't ask for an investment analysis on security (adding controls, procedures and products) and still you ask for "solid math" on "doing nothing"?

And then, an important part of executive board's job is taking strategic decisions that are not fully backed by data but gut feelings -or else, the best CEO would be a junior accountant!

Comment Re:The unwritten part of the headline... (Score 1) 69

"This is a perfect example of management having their heads up their asses."

Yes, it probably is.

"As someone from a management background education-wise I believe this is incredibly incompetent leadership"

Humm... but not so sure about that.

On one hand, from a purely business PoV, maybe having their proverbial IT asses wide open has been a net positive given what they have saved all this time in both direct and indirect costs and also costs of opportunity. What if I lose 100000$ to a hacker if all this time I haven't been hacked I save 1M$? Security costs -a lot, and its cost is from money of today, while loses are money of tomorrow. You say you have management background... what do they say? a buck today is worth more than a hundred tomorrow, or something?

On the other, from a psychological one, you may think they are there for the money when most of them are mostly to feel the powah! Micromanaging, feeling over their "minions" and, in fact, being able to make a mess and still get away with it is *exactly* the kind of leadership they want to push over... why do you think this manager is on good friendship with the company owner but because they both are birds of a feather?

Comment Re:In Other News (Score 2) 178

"You guys are the ones "retarded"."

Or is it Mr 110010001000 the retarded one?

"The legal definition of a contractor"

What you think the legal definition of a contractor given USA laws has nothing to do with whatever the UK definition is -which is relevant since this is about a UK case.

"Uber drivers are contractors."

Sure. That's why Uber lost the case and the tribunal told they are *not* contractors. So much for you comprehension of what "legal" means.

Now, I think we all know who the retarded one is.

Slashdot Top Deals

I am more bored than you could ever possibly be. Go back to work.