Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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:Abandon hope all ye who enter Slashdot? (Score 1) 38

Worth noting that this discussion itself will soon run into another slashdot "feature" that nobody ever thought to change over the years. Once a discussion has reached a certain age - completely without regard to the volume of comments - it is permanently closed. I never bothered to figure out what that age is, though I suspect some people knew it and used it to enhance their ability to get the "last word".

Comment Re:Abandon hope all ye who enter Slashdot? (Score 1) 38

Was the money all phony or coming solely from speculation? I can't rule out the possibility. I can say though that some employees of slashdot stuck around with it as their primary employment for many years. Now what that says about the wages paid to the programmers is anyone's guess, I would be inclined to say that based on how awful the code is - and how little it was improved in the past decade - that slashdot more or less got the shaft on however much they paid out.

Comment Re:Abandon hope all ye who enter Slashdot? (Score 1) 38

I'm not well enough connected to this system to know if it was ever truly economically viable. Indeed it may have been an early part of the first dot-com bubble but why would investors have assumed this particular site to have value? It never had any reason to grow to a huge user population. It certainly was bought and sold several times over though, including being bundled into a package with other sites...

Comment Vigorous debate? Surely you jest (Score 2, Insightful) 464

I've seen more vigorous debates amongst kids on tee-ball teams. Hoping for a vigorous debate on an issue like UBI in the conservative echo chamber that this place has become is as logical as picking up a crow feather on the street and hoping to use it to fly to the moon. There are so few commenters left here - and so little variation in thought and opinion - that I'm not sure we can even have a meaningful debate on emacs vs vi any more.

Comment Re: The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 307

If you look in the FEMA site, they say that they provide gramts to perform repairs not covered by insurance. And no, they don't do a needs test. Now, the typical rich person does not let their insurance lapse just so that they can get a FEMA grant. Because such a grant is no sure thing. They also point out that SBA loans are the main source of assistance following a disaster. You get a break on interest, but you have to pay them back.

Comment Re: The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 307

I understand your point about view land being desirable even though it's a flood risk. I live a mile or so from the Hayward fault. But I have California's risk pool earthquake insurance. The government wouldn't be paying me except from a fund that I've already paid into. I imagine that the government does pay some rich people in similar situations, but as far as I'm aware disaster funds go to the States from the federal government and should not in general become a form of rich people's welfare. Maybe you can find some direct evidence to show me that would make the situation more clear.

Comment Re:The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 307

What you are observing is economics. As a city or town population grows, the best land becomes unavailable and those who arrive later or have less funds available must settle for less desirable land. Thus many cities have been extended using landfill which liquifies as the San Francisco Marina District did in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, or floods. Risks may not be disclosed by developers, or may be discounted by authorities as the risks of global warming are today.

Efforts to protect people who might otherwise buy such land or to mitigate the risks are often labeled as government over-reach or nanny state.

Comment Re:Anyone surprised? (Score 1) 338

And based on actuarial data, he can expect to live about 15 more years.

Not at his weight. We don't know his actual height but we do know he's obese. Obesity at his age is just as detrimental - if not more so - as obesity at a younger age.

Keep in mind: he's never smoked, he doesn't drink and he has the best healthcare money can buy

So he won't die of lung cancer or liver cirrhosis. That doesn't mean much. We know that the rest of his health report is full of lies - and that as he signed a form claiming it to be truthful he blatantly lied under oath to the American people - so it's impossible to know what else is wrong with him. He's coming on 71 years old, which is up there. The current life expectancy in the US is around 76.6 for males, but he was born in 1946 when the number was 64.4 for men.

As for healthcare, it is not clear he is actually making good use of it. Just like in business he clearly likes to surround himself with people who will tell him what he wants to hear, rather than what he should hear. The comments from his physician on his evaluation are quite possibly enough to warrant a malpractice suit. His doctor should tell him to lose at least 50 pounds, if not more. Ever see footage of Trump exercising or eating something healthy? Me neither.

Comment Re:The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 307

Oh, of course they were caused by misguided engineering efforts. Everything from the Army Corps of Engineers to Smoky Bear goes under that heading. The most basic problem is the fact that we locate cities next to resources and transportation, which means water, without realizing where the 400-year flood plane is. Etc. We have learned something since then.

Our problem, today, is fixing these things. Which is blocked by folks who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, or even cause and effect at all. They don't, for the most part, register Democratic.

Comment The problem with your explanation (Score 5, Insightful) 307

The problem with your explanation is that it's fact-based, and stands on good science. This is the post-truth era. Thus, the counter to your argument will be:

  • Evidence for a human cause of erosion is thin and controversial, and is being pushed by loony liberals.
  • We need those oil and shipping jobs, and jobs building and maintaining levees, not more regulation that stifles them!
  • Cause and effect is not a real thing, except for one cause, God is behind everything.
  • This is part of God's plan for us. The end time is coming, and when the Rapture arrives it will not matter that Louisiana's coast has eroded. Cease your pursuit of unholy science and pray to save your soul!

Comment Re:Anyone surprised? (Score 1) 338

I'm not sure why some coward tagged your post overrated. I happen to disagree with several parts of what you said, but the overrated tag is unwarranted here (as it is in most cases).

The Clinton Administration was prosperous, had a great economy

For the rich. Workers got the shaft, hard, when Clinton picked up the Reagan/Bush free trade law and ran with it.

While the rich saw their wealth accelerate greatly under the Clinton Administration, the poor made better gains under the Clinton Administration than under almost any other of the past several decades. I can tell you that during that time my own wage was the furthest it had ever been from the federal or state minimum wage prior to when I completed graduate school. For some time I had a retail job where I was pulling about twice the minimum wage; now around 20 years later people in that same retail job are working it for about the same wage I made back then.

shitty service jobs paying a fraction of what a good unionized factory worker would make

You're absolutely right that the unions lost ground under Clinton. However they lost less ground under Clinton than under Reagan, either Bush, or Obama. Is that weak tea? Absolutely. It's easy to get the unions to yield when things are prosperous, and easy to strong-arm them into yielding when things are not. We've also had an overwhelming message of how terrible organized labor is (after all, who wants a 5 day work week, paid vacation, sick leave, or worker safety?) that makes it easy for the government to help big business disarm the unions.

Comment Re:FTFY (Score 1) 338

Democrats voted in overwhelming numbers for a full out Socialist over Clinton.

No, they did not. First of all, it is an oversimplification to call Sanders a "full out Socialist". He has many significant socialist leanings but he diverges from the common platform in several ways. More significantly though, the primaries and caucuses were won by Hillary. Even if the superdelegates didn't exist, even if we ignore the state lines and just take the straight votes, even if we stand on our head when we count the ballots, she still won the nomination in the vote tally. Was it close? Yes, it was really quite close. Arguably it was close enough that it forced her to change some parts of her platform to bring the Sanders supporters in to support her, but that wasn't enough to win the election in November.

Were democrats trying to keep her out of the white house, as you claim? I have yet to meet anyone who voted in a democratic primary or caucus who went there to vote against someone. By comparison there were huge numbers of people - on both sides - who went out on election day and primarily cast a ballot against someone.

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 338

so far hasn't done anything irreversible.

I think the first victims have been farmers who can't bring in their crops. Just the people who voted for him in California's central valley and wherever else we depend on guest workers. I don't see citizens lining up to pick those crops. The small family farmers, what's left of them, will feel this worse, the large corporate ones have the lawyers necessary to help them break the rules and truck people in from South of the border.

The second group of victims will be the ones who need health care that doesn't come from a big company. It's a lot more difficult to start a small business when there is no affordable way to get health care. And that is the case for my own small business - I'd be in bad shape if my wife left the University. I think that's the real goal - to keep people from leaving employment in larger companies and going off on their own.

Comment Re:Anyone surprised? (Score 1) 338

Personally I'm hoping that when Trump gets impeached or resigns, we find that Pence is tied in to the machine substantially enough to warrant his resignation as well. Just because we almost never see them in the same room doesn't mean Pence doesn't know what's going on; he is vastly more informed on how DC works than is Trump (although the same could be said for the couch in the Oval Office).

Hopefully it will trigger a crisis substantial enough to trigger a special federal election, otherwise the next in line is Paul Ryan which would not be good for the country either.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whom the gods would destroy, they first teach BASIC.