Why do we have private companies in other areas besides schools? Why doesn't the state run all businesses?
Because private business is the right thing in many cases, especially small to medium sized businesses, which apparently are much better at creating employment than large companies. What I'm saying is that privatization is not universally the best solution; a lot of things would be provided much better, if it was provided by well-paid, public employees. Well-paid, because this attracts many of the best talents, public, because that removes the profit-seeking and ensures long-term stability.
One of my favourite examples: I lived for some years in a place where the water mains would burst at least twice a year, always at the same place, at a bend in the road. The same private contractors would come out every time and fix it. Maybe I'm a nasty, suspicious kind of person, but it seems to me that these contractors had a cushy little number going: they would make a slightly dodgy repair, so they could be guaranteed to have the same job again a few months later. How they got away with this for years is a good question - but in a rural, local council like this one, the people sitting on all the council's committees are... the larger, local businesses. Privatization is not universally a good idea, and private companies are not all driven by moral idealism.
Das Kapital is, to quote Wikipedia, "a foundational theoretical text in communist philosophy, economics and politics. Marx aimed to reveal the economic patterns underpinning the capitalist mode of production, in contrast to classical political economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill." - how does that compare to Main Kampf? Marx is presenting a work of significant, scientific importance; as an economist, you may disagree with his analysis, but you accept it as a work by a scientist. Well, if you accept that theoretical economists are scientists - the jury is still out on that one, I suppose. And unlike Main Kampf's blaming everything on the Jews, whom Hitler saw as completely without merit, I believe, Marx is not simply against Capitalism in any shape or form, but against the excesses of exploitation of the poor, that were the hallmark of industrialism at his time. I don't think anybody today - even the staunchest conservative or libertarian - looks back at that time, thinking "That's the way it should be".
This is just yet another illustration of the privatization fallacy: that privatizing public services somehow makes them more efficient and cheaper NO MATTER WHAT. I've never been able to understand the reasoning behind - when the state provides a service, they do not have to produce a profit for shareholders, whereas private companies exist mainly to do this; all things being equal, how can a private company deliver the same service and skim off a profit? The answer is of course that the private company doesn't actually deliver the service, for one thing. The other side of the answer is that public services are cronically underfunded, and the staff is underpaid - which leads to poorer quality services that rely on overly complicated bureaucracy, since nobody is willing to take responsibility and take real leadership; public servants are simply not allowed to do the things that would lead to efficiency and real improvements.
That said, I think traditional welfare is probably not the way to help the poor; in order to manage your life well, you need more than a home and money to spend; there's a lot of life skills that you never had a chance to learn when you were a child and which are are very difficult to pick up when you are constantly running to keep things together as an adult. I know this - I grew up in poverty, and although I managed to climb out of it, I had to fight many years with the debt trap, and the fact that I had never been in a situation where making a budget was a realistic proposition; how can you make a budget, when you know you are going to be hit by more bills than you can possibly pay - and on top of that, even if you do make a list of everything, there is always going to be several that you have missed? It is very easy to simply give up and think "what do I care"; a lot of poor people do just that - they know they will never have any real hope. What you need in that situation is a way to get rid of their debt once and for all, and then coaching in basic life skills: budgetting, planning, even cooking good meals - all the things they didn't get the opportunity to learn, because they grew up knowing they were just trash and society didn't want to know about it.
Who's going to stop factory ships from going in there and trawling up the fish?
Creating a marine reserve is a declaration of intent; it means that if you violate it, you have been warned. We already have enough satelites looking down (think Google Maps) the be able to follow ships around across the oceans, just to mention one thing, and there has been a lot talk in recent years about actually using this to enforce rules on shipping and fishing. This is just another small piece in that puzzle; we don't necessarily need to have marine vessels defending these areas, when we can following the perpetrators on the big CCTV in the sky and then take them to court and strip to of all assets. If there is one thing the big multinationals that own the factory ships fear, it's losing money in a serious way. I hope they will be flayed and left in a salt pit.
Unfortunately, it is nothing more than the usual rehash of well known trivia with some colourful pictures stuck in between; hardly worth the effort. Perhaps if you are the kind of person who reads glossy 'man-magazines' about cars, fishing gear or how to become incredibly fit and muscular by looking at pictures of oiled-up body builders, this class of article may appeal to you; but if you are interested in real science or technology, probably not.
What's your point? Would you have been unable to tell if she was an asshole before you'd known her for several years? No, you'd have figured that out sometime in between 5 minutes and a few days.
The point? To point you and others towards the idea that maybe, when you judge people in the first couple of minutes, you are being too hasty. Perhaps you are too superficial, perhaps you are a misogynist, who knows; but if you dismiss others as 'assholes' just like that, chances are that you were already decided that they'd never get a chance. Don't you ever wonder what you are missing out on? We all have good and bad days - or weeks, sometimes - and in my experience, the person you would dismiss in the first couple of days, often turns out to be very worth your while when you get to know them, whereas the hot-looking, lively and sexy thing you can't keep your eyes of turns out to be just a superficial bimbo.
And there is also the other side of the equation: perhaps the way you choose to treat other people turns them off - at which point you decide they are 'assholes'?
Honestly; when do people - other than the pathologically obsessive - stop banging on about this nonsense? I mean, should we start finding dirt about the Republican candidates and their reacklessness? At that level of detail, everybody looks grubby; the only people who've never done anything wrong, are the ones who've never done anything. So grow up and get real.
I don't think it matters - I would much rather hear about the proposed policies of the differenct candidates; and not the silly posturing we see in the so-called debates, but what they would actually do, where they want to take the Nation, what they think the foreign policy should be, etc. So far, Jeb Bush seems to be the only one who has attempted to talk about real things on the Reublican side. I'm kind of chocked for saying that a Bush looks like the most sensible Republican, but that''s where it stands atm.
Sorry, as someone who knows/has known literally thousands of women in my lifetime, I call "bullshit".
And how well do you want us to believe you knew these 1000s of women? I've been married for 20 years and still learn new things about my wife; I wouldn't say I know much about her, really, before we had been together for at least a couple of years.
I agree that it is too simplistic to say 'Y chromosome == idiot", but on the other hand, males definitely tend to have higher testosterone levels, and there is a well documented correlation between high testosterone and aggression. "Male aggression" - it does sound familiar, I think; we men do have a tendency to use aggression in situations where it is counterproductive. Like when somebody is going to fly off the handle in the middle of reading what I'm writing here and start "refuting" everything I stand for without actually having read it. That is what being an "asshole" is all about.
Yes, well, there is a continuum from what most people see as acceptable: that 'somebody' (including police and intelligence services, but also journalists and the public) keeps a discreet eye open for what certain individuals and organisations do, to the unacceptable: that the same 'somebody' spies on everybody's most private and personal secrets - like when police (or journalists) hack into mobile phones etc. As far as I can see, there isn't a fundamental difference between the two ends of the scale, it's only a question of how much is acceptable. And how do we decide what is the right balance? Except by trying to gauge, democratically, what people as a whole, society, thinks about it? There is an ongoing debate about it - governments, police forces and intelligence agencies have their opinions, but they are far from the only ones to make their views known, and the debate not over - it probably never will be.
I have only just learned, to my complete chock, after using Linux for my desktop system for something like 20 years, that Linux Is Not Ready For The Desktop. I'll have to stop using it, then..... *sigh*
Any movement or political thought that seeks to ban free speech is the enemy of all of civilization
And thus the grandiose posturing goes on and on and on and on.....
Twitter, Facebook, etc are private companies, of course, and can set whichever rules they like; for better or worse, they are are not publically funded instutions subjected to the rules of transparency, and they don't have to allow anybody to use their resources to publish their views. Apart from that, this is not a "political movement that seeks to ban free speech", it is about the right of everybody to be able take part in social activities without fear of being bullied, attacked, harrassed, etc - at least in some places. If you want to rant and rave and hurl abuse at the world, go to some place like Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park in London; there are plenty of outlets available for any kind of idiocy, so it's not like you're being gagged just because Twitter won't tolerate schoolyard bullies who are unable learn basic manners.
It appear that all samzenpus delivers is mindless, right-wing extremism and paid adverts thinly disguised as 'tech articles'. I'm definitely driting in the direction of not bothering reading/. anymore.
...pork barrel jobs, regardless of whether those jobs do anything useful or not.
And what is this? A cheap shot at fundamental research from somebody who hasn't got a clue? Most of the progress in science, technology and medicine since the dawn of time is based on research that would have been seen as wortless waste of time by most of contemporary society - science used to be regarded as one of the arts, ie. pretty and inspiring, but not all that useful.
Looks like the Dutch have plenty of money to spare and are taking steps to remedy this dire situation.
Or perhaps the Dutch have more courage? I think it is bit like how we tackle problems with drugs; we all know that drug use causes big health problems and ruins lives, and that this costs society a lot of money. However, what is more expensive - spending enormous amounts on policing drug users as well as the cost of health care because the available drugs are cut with all kinds of poisons etc, or legalising, taxing, save on policing and health care? A loaded question, I know, but it is the same with unemployment; there are always people who can't find work for very legitimate reasonsthey don't have the skills for the jobs, they can't get the training, and if they get trained, they are tainted by the fact that they have been long-time unemployed etc. What do we do about them?
- Leave them to: rot this was the situation at the time of Dickens; levels of crime and disease were miles high.
- Give them money, but administrate it tightly: this is what they do in Denmark, among others, and the fact is that the administration costs more than what society would lose if people simply got the money and we re allowed to cheat.
- Citizen salary: done right, this may be the cheapest option. There will have to be incentives to lure people out of not even trying, but it may be a lot easier than we think. Most people don't want to sit around idle, believe it or not; having a job gives you status and social contact - what people on benefits don't want, of course, is being "punished" for taking up work, and if having a job leads to you losing your social benefits, that feels like being punished for working.
It may be the Dutch are on to something. (yes, yes, I know, in a country where cannabis is legal, perhaps they are ON something as well, but that's separate matter)
Aye, who wouldn't like a wee dram? The problem with using old fashioned measures (to sound 'quaint', perhaps?) is that they originate from some local tradition and therefore have meanings that depend on where you are and which context you are in.This introduces a lot of potential problems - read 'sources of error'. That is the very reason why the system has been so successful internationally.
AN engineer should have no problem converting units. Slashdot is and always has been American-centric. It says so in the FAQ.
As an engineer, I don't have much trouble converting units, when I need to. But when I am faced with the pound as a weight unit, I have to first figure out which of the many pounds we're talking about - to an American, perhaps, everything is American, but to everybody else, not so. Plus, since us Internationals used to use pounds or similar in the past, reading an American article like this feels like stepping back in time; personally, I tend to lose interest around that point. My loss, you might say, but the publishers of articles would have an interest in not limiting the reach of their articles, one would imagine.
As for/. being American-centric, I think reality has moved on a bit - perhaps the FAQ should be updated to reflect this. No nation exists in isolation any more - not even North Korea. Considering the declining role of America in the area of technology, I don't think America can afford being so narrowly self-centered in the long run. Just a thought, really - but just imagine if people elsewhere lose interest and start reading, I don't know, Chinese blogs because they are much more interesting? The world changes, and we have to keep up or get left behind.
By a happy coincidence, I wasn't looking for sympathy - I was just trying to lure - or provoke - the Americans out of their comfort zone. It would do you good in the long run, really.
I am not at all looking forward to the day that cash is eliminated. I don't want to have to have a middle-man in every transaction (yes, I have and use credit cards). Because I don't know what that middle-man might do. Remember when Master Card decided they wouldn't process donations to Wikileaks, because they didn't like what Wikileaks was doing? Now think about that type of control in every transaction. Sure, most are just fine. But that's only because the payment processor allows it.
Well, that day is probably a long way away, at least in most places. Cash is too useful - not for its anonymity, but because it is simple. A coin is an universally accepted IOU token, and if the state stops providing them, I bet somebody else will; like, if you go to a street market, there will be a small booth where you can buy a bag full of trading tokens to spend in there. Then the supermarkets will want to have some share in that, etc..
On a slightly different subject: people are always paranoid about wht 'The Evil Government' is going to do against them, but it always turns out that what they actually are afraid of, is what big businesses do - as in you example. It was Master Card that decided not to process payments to Wikileaks, not the government. I would say it will always be big corporations that mess around with our freedoms, privacy etc, and rarely the government - it is businesses that want to know what you do and predict where you go, they are the ones who want to restrict your movement and limit your choice - all of this so they can extract more money from you. Big businesses are also the main benefactors from the widespread mistrust in government; perhaps they have a hand in that? I would be surprised if they don't.
Government is there to protect your rights - not give you rights
True - but I was not talking government, but about society: the people you are surrounded by. In an ideal world, government serves society and protects freedoms etc. of course. But it is a misunderstanding to think that freedom is somehow an absolute, given by God or 'Nature'. When we live with other people, there is always a tradeoff - you find some sort of compromise between freedom and the restrictions necessary for living peacefully together. You may claim that ultimately everyvody can choose freely whether to give up a freedom or not - but that is sometimes like choosing to do as you're told or being killed for choosing not to; freedom has a cost.
We are an international audience. Many of us are engineers. Probably the majority of us are not used to thinking in the American dialect of Imperial Measures. Is it not time that we show a bit of curtesy to people and start using metric? I mean, it is not even as if anybody actually has much of an intuition of how much "110,000 pounds" is, other than "it's a lot". Metric tons we can compare to things we know - a lorry, a cubic meter of water (there was the metric again) etc. 110 kpounds? Probably about 500 t; but of course 500 doesn't sounds as big as 110,000.
- also, apart from entertainment, is there a compelling reason that we need VR? Will business be better, more efficient,... than what we have now? I can't see it myself; it might look cool, but that's about it.
Well, it all boils down to the old conundrum: the world is not ready for democracy. Democracy, like social;ism, only works if every member of society is completely honest and willing to play their part - and accept the result. And if the winners of any election honestly and to their best effort try to govern to the benefit of the whole of society. Our current system doesn't even work very well in the best and most enlightened democracies, and it only works because people have a basic trust in the system and the people in government. A lot of that trust follows from knowing that we can at any time challenge the outcome of an election, and the idea that anybody can, in principle, understand a vote that has been put down as a mark with a pen on a piece of paper. Electronic voting is convenient, but it is very aesy for anybody to imagine how easy it would be to forge - thus, ordinary people will not trust it in the long run.
Apart from that - since very few people actually take enough interest in politics, the overwhelming majority would just register a default vote, at best, and we would have a situation where it is nearly impossible to make decisions other than maintaining the status quo. So, should we make it mandatory for all people not just to vote, but also to keep themselves well informed about all the facts relevant to every decision that is put to the vote? And how will we catch the ones who don't do this duty?
But if every transaction is trackable, say goodbye to any semblance of freedom or anonymity other than what they choose to give you.
And this is different from what it's always been - how? When you are part of a society, the freedoms you enjoy, are yours because that society allows them. It isn't the government, but the people around you that restrict most of your freedom. That is one reason why immigrants so often end up in ghettos: that is the only place their culture is tolerated. Ever wondered why there is such a contrast between what the governments in different countries say and what people on the ground experience? Well, that's why.
Personally I think it is a very good thing if the state (not actually the government, you know) keep a tab on all financial transactions; rich people, big companies, criminals, they all have an interest in squirreling money away - legally or not - but I don't. Being a salary slave, I automatically pay my tax before I see any money and really have very few benefits from using cash. Egotistical, I know, but that is the capitalist way, isn't it? "Enlightened self-interest" and all that crap
Slashdot Mirror
Why do we have private companies in other areas besides schools? Why doesn't the state run all businesses?
Because private business is the right thing in many cases, especially small to medium sized businesses, which apparently are much better at creating employment than large companies. What I'm saying is that privatization is not universally the best solution; a lot of things would be provided much better, if it was provided by well-paid, public employees. Well-paid, because this attracts many of the best talents, public, because that removes the profit-seeking and ensures long-term stability.
One of my favourite examples: I lived for some years in a place where the water mains would burst at least twice a year, always at the same place, at a bend in the road. The same private contractors would come out every time and fix it. Maybe I'm a nasty, suspicious kind of person, but it seems to me that these contractors had a cushy little number going: they would make a slightly dodgy repair, so they could be guaranteed to have the same job again a few months later. How they got away with this for years is a good question - but in a rural, local council like this one, the people sitting on all the council's committees are... the larger, local businesses. Privatization is not universally a good idea, and private companies are not all driven by moral idealism.
...Das Kapital and other "bad" books.
Das Kapital is, to quote Wikipedia, "a foundational theoretical text in communist philosophy, economics and politics. Marx aimed to reveal the economic patterns underpinning the capitalist mode of production, in contrast to classical political economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill." - how does that compare to Main Kampf? Marx is presenting a work of significant, scientific importance; as an economist, you may disagree with his analysis, but you accept it as a work by a scientist. Well, if you accept that theoretical economists are scientists - the jury is still out on that one, I suppose. And unlike Main Kampf's blaming everything on the Jews, whom Hitler saw as completely without merit, I believe, Marx is not simply against Capitalism in any shape or form, but against the excesses of exploitation of the poor, that were the hallmark of industrialism at his time. I don't think anybody today - even the staunchest conservative or libertarian - looks back at that time, thinking "That's the way it should be".
This is just yet another illustration of the privatization fallacy: that privatizing public services somehow makes them more efficient and cheaper NO MATTER WHAT. I've never been able to understand the reasoning behind - when the state provides a service, they do not have to produce a profit for shareholders, whereas private companies exist mainly to do this; all things being equal, how can a private company deliver the same service and skim off a profit? The answer is of course that the private company doesn't actually deliver the service, for one thing. The other side of the answer is that public services are cronically underfunded, and the staff is underpaid - which leads to poorer quality services that rely on overly complicated bureaucracy, since nobody is willing to take responsibility and take real leadership; public servants are simply not allowed to do the things that would lead to efficiency and real improvements.
That said, I think traditional welfare is probably not the way to help the poor; in order to manage your life well, you need more than a home and money to spend; there's a lot of life skills that you never had a chance to learn when you were a child and which are are very difficult to pick up when you are constantly running to keep things together as an adult. I know this - I grew up in poverty, and although I managed to climb out of it, I had to fight many years with the debt trap, and the fact that I had never been in a situation where making a budget was a realistic proposition; how can you make a budget, when you know you are going to be hit by more bills than you can possibly pay - and on top of that, even if you do make a list of everything, there is always going to be several that you have missed? It is very easy to simply give up and think "what do I care"; a lot of poor people do just that - they know they will never have any real hope. What you need in that situation is a way to get rid of their debt once and for all, and then coaching in basic life skills: budgetting, planning, even cooking good meals - all the things they didn't get the opportunity to learn, because they grew up knowing they were just trash and society didn't want to know about it.
Who's going to stop factory ships from going in there and trawling up the fish?
Creating a marine reserve is a declaration of intent; it means that if you violate it, you have been warned. We already have enough satelites looking down (think Google Maps) the be able to follow ships around across the oceans, just to mention one thing, and there has been a lot talk in recent years about actually using this to enforce rules on shipping and fishing. This is just another small piece in that puzzle; we don't necessarily need to have marine vessels defending these areas, when we can following the perpetrators on the big CCTV in the sky and then take them to court and strip to of all assets. If there is one thing the big multinationals that own the factory ships fear, it's losing money in a serious way. I hope they will be flayed and left in a salt pit.
The Forbes link demands that I turn off my ad blocker. Therefore I won't click on it.
Nor would I, but somebody elsewhere has posted this link in Google cache:
http://webcache.googleusercont...
Unfortunately, it is nothing more than the usual rehash of well known trivia with some colourful pictures stuck in between; hardly worth the effort. Perhaps if you are the kind of person who reads glossy 'man-magazines' about cars, fishing gear or how to become incredibly fit and muscular by looking at pictures of oiled-up body builders, this class of article may appeal to you; but if you are interested in real science or technology, probably not.
What's your point? Would you have been unable to tell if she was an asshole before you'd known her for several years? No, you'd have figured that out sometime in between 5 minutes and a few days.
The point? To point you and others towards the idea that maybe, when you judge people in the first couple of minutes, you are being too hasty. Perhaps you are too superficial, perhaps you are a misogynist, who knows; but if you dismiss others as 'assholes' just like that, chances are that you were already decided that they'd never get a chance. Don't you ever wonder what you are missing out on? We all have good and bad days - or weeks, sometimes - and in my experience, the person you would dismiss in the first couple of days, often turns out to be very worth your while when you get to know them, whereas the hot-looking, lively and sexy thing you can't keep your eyes of turns out to be just a superficial bimbo.
And there is also the other side of the equation: perhaps the way you choose to treat other people turns them off - at which point you decide they are 'assholes'?
Honestly; when do people - other than the pathologically obsessive - stop banging on about this nonsense? I mean, should we start finding dirt about the Republican candidates and their reacklessness? At that level of detail, everybody looks grubby; the only people who've never done anything wrong, are the ones who've never done anything. So grow up and get real.
I don't think it matters - I would much rather hear about the proposed policies of the differenct candidates; and not the silly posturing we see in the so-called debates, but what they would actually do, where they want to take the Nation, what they think the foreign policy should be, etc. So far, Jeb Bush seems to be the only one who has attempted to talk about real things on the Reublican side. I'm kind of chocked for saying that a Bush looks like the most sensible Republican, but that''s where it stands atm.
Sorry, as someone who knows/has known literally thousands of women in my lifetime, I call "bullshit".
And how well do you want us to believe you knew these 1000s of women? I've been married for 20 years and still learn new things about my wife; I wouldn't say I know much about her, really, before we had been together for at least a couple of years.
I agree that it is too simplistic to say 'Y chromosome == idiot", but on the other hand, males definitely tend to have higher testosterone levels, and there is a well documented correlation between high testosterone and aggression. "Male aggression" - it does sound familiar, I think; we men do have a tendency to use aggression in situations where it is counterproductive. Like when somebody is going to fly off the handle in the middle of reading what I'm writing here and start "refuting" everything I stand for without actually having read it. That is what being an "asshole" is all about.
When the GOOD guys do it it's okay!
Yes, well, there is a continuum from what most people see as acceptable: that 'somebody' (including police and intelligence services, but also journalists and the public) keeps a discreet eye open for what certain individuals and organisations do, to the unacceptable: that the same 'somebody' spies on everybody's most private and personal secrets - like when police (or journalists) hack into mobile phones etc. As far as I can see, there isn't a fundamental difference between the two ends of the scale, it's only a question of how much is acceptable. And how do we decide what is the right balance? Except by trying to gauge, democratically, what people as a whole, society, thinks about it? There is an ongoing debate about it - governments, police forces and intelligence agencies have their opinions, but they are far from the only ones to make their views known, and the debate not over - it probably never will be.
I have only just learned, to my complete chock, after using Linux for my desktop system for something like 20 years, that Linux Is Not Ready For The Desktop. I'll have to stop using it, then..... *sigh*
Any movement or political thought that seeks to ban free speech is the enemy of all of civilization
And thus the grandiose posturing goes on and on and on and on .....
Twitter, Facebook, etc are private companies, of course, and can set whichever rules they like; for better or worse, they are are not publically funded instutions subjected to the rules of transparency, and they don't have to allow anybody to use their resources to publish their views. Apart from that, this is not a "political movement that seeks to ban free speech", it is about the right of everybody to be able take part in social activities without fear of being bullied, attacked, harrassed, etc - at least in some places. If you want to rant and rave and hurl abuse at the world, go to some place like Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park in London; there are plenty of outlets available for any kind of idiocy, so it's not like you're being gagged just because Twitter won't tolerate schoolyard bullies who are unable learn basic manners.
It appear that all samzenpus delivers is mindless, right-wing extremism and paid adverts thinly disguised as 'tech articles'. I'm definitely driting in the direction of not bothering reading /. anymore.
...pork barrel jobs, regardless of whether those jobs do anything useful or not.
And what is this? A cheap shot at fundamental research from somebody who hasn't got a clue? Most of the progress in science, technology and medicine since the dawn of time is based on research that would have been seen as wortless waste of time by most of contemporary society - science used to be regarded as one of the arts, ie. pretty and inspiring, but not all that useful.
If you make handcuffs, don't expect any business from me.
Not even the pink ones that go so well with latex clothing?
Looks like the Dutch have plenty of money to spare and are taking steps to remedy this dire situation.
Or perhaps the Dutch have more courage? I think it is bit like how we tackle problems with drugs; we all know that drug use causes big health problems and ruins lives, and that this costs society a lot of money. However, what is more expensive - spending enormous amounts on policing drug users as well as the cost of health care because the available drugs are cut with all kinds of poisons etc, or legalising, taxing, save on policing and health care? A loaded question, I know, but it is the same with unemployment; there are always people who can't find work for very legitimate reasonsthey don't have the skills for the jobs, they can't get the training, and if they get trained, they are tainted by the fact that they have been long-time unemployed etc. What do we do about them?
- Leave them to: rot this was the situation at the time of Dickens; levels of crime and disease were miles high.
- Give them money, but administrate it tightly: this is what they do in Denmark, among others, and the fact is that the administration costs more than what society would lose if people simply got the money and we re allowed to cheat.
- Citizen salary: done right, this may be the cheapest option. There will have to be incentives to lure people out of not even trying, but it may be a lot easier than we think. Most people don't want to sit around idle, believe it or not; having a job gives you status and social contact - what people on benefits don't want, of course, is being "punished" for taking up work, and if having a job leads to you losing your social benefits, that feels like being punished for working.
It may be the Dutch are on to something. (yes, yes, I know, in a country where cannabis is legal, perhaps they are ON something as well, but that's separate matter)
...how many grams are in a dram ...
Aye, who wouldn't like a wee dram? The problem with using old fashioned measures (to sound 'quaint', perhaps?) is that they originate from some local tradition and therefore have meanings that depend on where you are and which context you are in.This introduces a lot of potential problems - read 'sources of error'. That is the very reason why the system has been so successful internationally.
AN engineer should have no problem converting units. Slashdot is and always has been American-centric. It says so in the FAQ.
As an engineer, I don't have much trouble converting units, when I need to. But when I am faced with the pound as a weight unit, I have to first figure out which of the many pounds we're talking about - to an American, perhaps, everything is American, but to everybody else, not so. Plus, since us Internationals used to use pounds or similar in the past, reading an American article like this feels like stepping back in time; personally, I tend to lose interest around that point. My loss, you might say, but the publishers of articles would have an interest in not limiting the reach of their articles, one would imagine.
As for /. being American-centric, I think reality has moved on a bit - perhaps the FAQ should be updated to reflect this. No nation exists in isolation any more - not even North Korea. Considering the declining role of America in the area of technology, I don't think America can afford being so narrowly self-centered in the long run. Just a thought, really - but just imagine if people elsewhere lose interest and start reading, I don't know, Chinese blogs because they are much more interesting? The world changes, and we have to keep up or get left behind.
There are a lot of accountants here, too and you don't hear us crying about it, do ya?
I expect an account would ask "Which country?" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_%28currency%29). Sorry, just a bad joke :-)
Sorry for not having much sympathy
By a happy coincidence, I wasn't looking for sympathy - I was just trying to lure - or provoke - the Americans out of their comfort zone. It would do you good in the long run, really.
I am not at all looking forward to the day that cash is eliminated. I don't want to have to have a middle-man in every transaction (yes, I have and use credit cards). Because I don't know what that middle-man might do. Remember when Master Card decided they wouldn't process donations to Wikileaks, because they didn't like what Wikileaks was doing? Now think about that type of control in every transaction. Sure, most are just fine. But that's only because the payment processor allows it.
Well, that day is probably a long way away, at least in most places. Cash is too useful - not for its anonymity, but because it is simple. A coin is an universally accepted IOU token, and if the state stops providing them, I bet somebody else will; like, if you go to a street market, there will be a small booth where you can buy a bag full of trading tokens to spend in there. Then the supermarkets will want to have some share in that, etc..
On a slightly different subject: people are always paranoid about wht 'The Evil Government' is going to do against them, but it always turns out that what they actually are afraid of, is what big businesses do - as in you example. It was Master Card that decided not to process payments to Wikileaks, not the government. I would say it will always be big corporations that mess around with our freedoms, privacy etc, and rarely the government - it is businesses that want to know what you do and predict where you go, they are the ones who want to restrict your movement and limit your choice - all of this so they can extract more money from you. Big businesses are also the main benefactors from the widespread mistrust in government; perhaps they have a hand in that? I would be surprised if they don't.
Government is there to protect your rights - not give you rights
True - but I was not talking government, but about society: the people you are surrounded by. In an ideal world, government serves society and protects freedoms etc. of course. But it is a misunderstanding to think that freedom is somehow an absolute, given by God or 'Nature'. When we live with other people, there is always a tradeoff - you find some sort of compromise between freedom and the restrictions necessary for living peacefully together. You may claim that ultimately everyvody can choose freely whether to give up a freedom or not - but that is sometimes like choosing to do as you're told or being killed for choosing not to; freedom has a cost.
You're too kind :-) About the troll part - is it trolling, now-a-days, when somebody makes a (very slightly provocative) joke?
... 110,000 pounds per hour... 8,000 feet ...
We are an international audience. Many of us are engineers. Probably the majority of us are not used to thinking in the American dialect of Imperial Measures. Is it not time that we show a bit of curtesy to people and start using metric? I mean, it is not even as if anybody actually has much of an intuition of how much "110,000 pounds" is, other than "it's a lot". Metric tons we can compare to things we know - a lorry, a cubic meter of water (there was the metric again) etc. 110 kpounds? Probably about 500 t; but of course 500 doesn't sounds as big as 110,000.
- also, apart from entertainment, is there a compelling reason that we need VR? Will business be better, more efficient, ... than what we have now? I can't see it myself; it might look cool, but that's about it.
Well, it all boils down to the old conundrum: the world is not ready for democracy. Democracy, like social;ism, only works if every member of society is completely honest and willing to play their part - and accept the result. And if the winners of any election honestly and to their best effort try to govern to the benefit of the whole of society. Our current system doesn't even work very well in the best and most enlightened democracies, and it only works because people have a basic trust in the system and the people in government. A lot of that trust follows from knowing that we can at any time challenge the outcome of an election, and the idea that anybody can, in principle, understand a vote that has been put down as a mark with a pen on a piece of paper. Electronic voting is convenient, but it is very aesy for anybody to imagine how easy it would be to forge - thus, ordinary people will not trust it in the long run.
Apart from that - since very few people actually take enough interest in politics, the overwhelming majority would just register a default vote, at best, and we would have a situation where it is nearly impossible to make decisions other than maintaining the status quo. So, should we make it mandatory for all people not just to vote, but also to keep themselves well informed about all the facts relevant to every decision that is put to the vote? And how will we catch the ones who don't do this duty?
But if every transaction is trackable, say goodbye to any semblance of freedom or anonymity other than what they choose to give you.
And this is different from what it's always been - how? When you are part of a society, the freedoms you enjoy, are yours because that society allows them. It isn't the government, but the people around you that restrict most of your freedom. That is one reason why immigrants so often end up in ghettos: that is the only place their culture is tolerated. Ever wondered why there is such a contrast between what the governments in different countries say and what people on the ground experience? Well, that's why.
Personally I think it is a very good thing if the state (not actually the government, you know) keep a tab on all financial transactions; rich people, big companies, criminals, they all have an interest in squirreling money away - legally or not - but I don't. Being a salary slave, I automatically pay my tax before I see any money and really have very few benefits from using cash. Egotistical, I know, but that is the capitalist way, isn't it? "Enlightened self-interest" and all that crap