Slashdot Mirror

What the fuck does this have to do with "women in tech"?

This is Pakistan. Challenge the authority of the religious, tribal and/or self-appointed leaders and violence occurs. Being a woman has fuck all to do with it. Being in tech has fuck all to do with it.

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/...
http://costsofwar.org/article/...
http://pakistanbodycount.org/

It's a stupid violent place.

There is another way to look at it. Using your figures, the total amount per US person is about US$142. That is for a ten year lease of the spectrum if I recall correctly, so we can expect a similar amount again in another decade. So, that is about US$14 per person per year during that time (well, a little more, with interest as the money if the money is received up front). For a family of four, that is about US$56 per family per year ignoring interest. That could be a month or two of cell phone service on a cheap plan -- or even half a year for one phone on a very cheap plan (like Ting's cheapest). Or, with the entire amount up front (US$560 per family), that could be the cost of an unlocked current smartphone or, say, two current Chromebooks, or, say, a Chromebook and a "FreedomBox" or such as a home server, or, say, a new Raspberry Pi educational kit every three years. Or it might just cover an otherwise-missed mortgage payment during the next decade. US$560 in various ways could make a *big* difference to a lot of lower middle class people living paycheck to paycheck on the edge in the USA.

Given that whoever got the spectrum will undoubtedly charge more for it given these up front costs, it seems only fair for families to get some money to offset those extra costs.

It's true though that some US states already have a free-to-the-user limited cell phone plan for very poorest people on Welfare, an one might argue in theory this money should also go to something like that -- but probably less fairly IMHO compared to a needs-blind cost, otherwise it becomes a hidden "tax" on everyone. I would argue that the current approach, to put the money to deficit reduction, is similarly just a hidden tax of US$560 on every US family -- where the tax for deficit reduction is paid by higher cell phone fees. Since the poorest people probably spend the greatest percentage of their income on cell phone service (which is becoming a necessity of mainstream US life), the plan to use the money to pay back the deficit is a terribly *regressive* tax as a way to pay back the deficit. This also ignores both that the deficit creates the US money supply and also that much of it can be considered to be underwriting problematical optional war spending like the Iraq war. So, rather than get US$560 in the family pocketbook, each US family instead sees a tighter money supply (so, higher credit card interest) and also probably yet more war spending since there was no real accounting for the previous spending (other than this new hidden cell phone tax).

Related:
http://costsofwar.org/article/...
"The increased military spending following 9/11 was financed almost entirely by borrowing."

As an aside, the theory of auctioning off (or "privatizing") the spectrum is probably based on some notion of "highest economic use", in the theory that whoever would pay the most for the spectrum would make the most use of it for the most benefit to the most people. But in reality, such auctions may just be putting resources in the hands of people (and their organizations) that may have the most capital (including trademarks and good will) and think they are best at "rent seeking" to extract the most money from the most people regardless of what they can deliver. Again, distributing the funds raised at least partially protects people from that -- however, it is still not enough in many cases. Ideas like the open WiFi spectrum are alternatives, and are helping a lot of people in a lot of ways. Other ideas include "ham" like regulations on the use of some frequencies.

Right now, almost everyone 65 or older (roughly) gets a basic income in the USA of about US$1000 - US$2000 per month via "Social Security" as well as health care via Medicare. Is that not significant? That makes a big difference to a lot of people and even their children. So, I feel it is hard to generalize that "Disbursement of government money to the masses doesn't really do much". Grant

We did not kill "thousands upon thousands". The vast majority of deaths of Iraqis were — and continue to be — at the hands of other Iraqis. We killed very few, taking thousands of POWs — and releasing them promptly after we prevailed. The various counters deliberately omit this important distinction — either because it makes their efforts look silly, or because they sincerely can not. Either way, the fact remains — we took the country over very swiftly and shed relatively little blood.

Why no officer, all these dead people where here when I got here, nothing to do with me.

Saddam did not violate any ceasefire agreements in anyway that mattered to US interests.

Bzzz! Lying substitution #1: I said nothing about "mattered to US interests". Only that he did violate the agreement. This is an important distinction, because we can spend years arguing, what the "US interests are" exactly, whereas the fact of violation of agreements stands.

Yeah, the US hates dictators. You have to got to be fucking kidding.

Bzzz! Lying substitution #2: I sad mad dictators. Pinochet — our kind of dictator — for example, not only stepped down voluntarily (what sort of tyrant does that?), but also left his country as the South America's top economy.

Killing thousands upon thousands of people

Bzzz! Lie #3. We did not kill "thousands upon thousands". The vast majority of deaths of Iraqis were — and continue to be — at the hands of other Iraqis. We killed very few, taking thousands of POWs — and releasing them promptly after we prevailed. The various counters deliberately omit this important distinction — either because it makes their efforts look silly, or because they sincerely can not. Either way, the fact remains — we took the country over very swiftly and shed relatively little blood.

That's why corporations have sued their customers

Unsustainable. Great way to reduce the number of customers. It'll never work. In addition, this is usually done with the help of government by using the government police and government jail.

knowingly sold lethally dangerous products

Unsustainable. How long do you think that will last. When people get bad service, they tell up to 100 people.

Customer service gurus know that while one happy, satisfied customer might tell five friends and family members about their pleasant experience, an unhappy customer is more likely to share the bad news with up to 100 people.

http://www.unitiv.com/intelligent-help-desk-blog/bid/64134/New-Survey-Shows-Unhappy-Customers-Spread-the-Word

knowingly polluted the environment

Government pollution through war dwarfs all other pollution. Pollution is a violation of the non aggression principle and it should be dealt with by force. Are you saying that you don't approve of government because of all the pollution that they produce? Educate yourself. http://costsofwar.org/article/environmental-costs

and spent millions lobbying to minimise workers rights and minimise their salaries.

Of course corporations will use government to do their dirty work. The government literally has the biggest guns and the cheapest way to gain access to the these guns is to lobby. Buying the guns would be way too expensive and not profitable. When governments disappear, so does lobbying and the guns.

The best way to make a profit is to be a monopolist and/or rentier. Which is why all capitalists strive for those outcomes.

If monopolies are bad and the government is a monopoly then why do you think governments are good?

Translation: Evidence and research be damned. Plus we dont kill innocent people (no citation required, those thousands of kids killed were all enemy combatants for starters).

Suggest you try again. Perhaps read a book on rhetoric and argumentation first (rhetoric will probably serve you better given your absence of facts).

The "medicare part d" according to Wikipedia cost just under $50 billion in 2008. The cost of "homeland security" from 2001 to 2011 was $649 billion according to: http://costsofwar.org/article/homeland-security-budget . Even on a ten year basis these things are hardly "trillion dollar" anything. Your primary discussion is on the debt, which I generally agree that a debt is bad to at least carry —no doubt with one as large as the United States has. Debt itself is not bad, because governments can use it to soften downturns, but must be good enough to repay on the upturns. If you want a good economic recovery, the last thing you want to do is "cut welfare checks". If you want to get money into the economy, give it to the people who will spend it. Those are the people who are down on their luck, or otherwise don't have savings. Those people are the exact people you want to cut welfare from. In Ontario, Canada there was once a man named Mike Harris. He believed in the very same things: cut welfare, give money back to the rich and they will spend it. It doesn't work, because they don't spend it - they save it. Savings takes money out of the economy, because the economy is the continuous flow of money.