×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Ask Slashdot: Why Is the Power Grid So Crummy In So Many Places?

jimbolauski Re:Super-capitalism (491 comments)

Their outages are not just due to energy shortages, after a snow storm one city lost power for 3 weeks in 2008. As long as you have above ground power you will be susceptible to storms causing power outages, the only difference is that China keeps a tight lid on negative information.

yesterday
top

Ask Slashdot: Why Is the Power Grid So Crummy In So Many Places?

jimbolauski Re:Super-capitalism (491 comments)

I don't know where you get your sources but China has power outage problems.

Blackouts appear to be the worst in smaller towns like Yiyang here in Hunan, one of Chinaâ(TM)s largest and most populous provinces. The power shortages are threatening to curb the explosive growth the province has experienced since the opening in late 2009 of a high-speed electric train link to prosperous Guangdong province to the south, which helped companies tap Hunanâ(TM)s cheaper land and labor force.â

Energy shortages have forced factories to cut production and ration their energy supplies. In some cases factories operate only a night when demand for energy is low. In other cases they have been forced to shut down completely for more than two weeks. The shortages were particularly hard on industries that need a lot of energy like aluminum, steel and cement and ones with furnaces that need a constant supply f energy or they break.

Factories in Guangdong were told that their power would be cut one day a week, then two days a week, then five days a week, during peak hours. Under these conditions the factories switched production to the night and on weekends of bought their own diesel generators, which increased manufacturing costs by around 5 percent.

In Shanghai there have been runs on power generators and power has been cut to factories while neon lights were allowed to keep blinking on the Bund; decorative lights on skyscrapers are kept on late into the night; and air conditioning is kept on the fancy shopping malls so that everything seems to hunky dory to visitors ib Shanghai.

Power outages have been a boon for makers of diesel generators of all sizes. General Electric, Siemens and Mitsubishi heavy Industries have won large contracts supplying turbines and other technology for Chinaâ(TM)s power-generating plants.

yesterday
top

Ask Slashdot: Why Is the Power Grid So Crummy In So Many Places?

jimbolauski Re:Super-capitalism (491 comments)

You couldn't be more wrong, the electric companies or at least the companies that own the power lines are monopolies, they are regulated by the state. How much they spend cutting back trees is set by the state.

yesterday
top

Obama's Immigration Order To Give Tech Industry Some, Leave 'Em Wanting More

jimbolauski Re:I bet Infosys and Tata are dancing in the stree (186 comments)

Why would Obama be fund raising? Once you retire from public office any money you have left over becomes yours.

5 days ago
top

Republicans Block Latest Attempt At Curbing NSA Power

jimbolauski Re:Senate Rules require 60 to pass (441 comments)

This was not a vote for passage but a vote to end debate, cloture. If you read the bill you will see it essentially grants the AG the power to search if the AG thinks it's an emergency, I personally think that needs to be debated and fixed.

about a week ago
top

'Star Wars: Episode VII' Gets a Name

jimbolauski Re:No thank you (267 comments)

Oceans 11, the original was an awful musical.
The Fly, the original costumes and make up took away from the story
Scarface, the original was from 1932
True Grit, the original was a spaghetti western
There are probably even more westerns that were better then the originals but you get the point there are more then a few remakes that exceeded the originals.

about three weeks ago
top

Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans

jimbolauski Re:This is great news! (485 comments)

The unemployment rate is not a good indicator that our economy is turning around. People that are not working but have given up looking for work are not counted in the unemployment rate. The labor participation rate is a better indicator of our economy as it is a measure of how many people are working which has been in decline since 2009. Labor Force Participation Rate

about three weeks ago
top

Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

jimbolauski Re:Redistribution (739 comments)

You can keep you health insurance 18 months after you leave the company under COBRA. You will be responsible for paying the premiums which is typically much higher than what is deducted from your paycheck. You still have the exact same coverage but now you are paying for all of it.

about a month ago
top

How To Beat Online Price Discrimination

jimbolauski Re:say what? (163 comments)

Supposedly you log in and put the item in your shopping cart and leave the site. Within a couple of days the merchant contacts you with a better price for those items.

about a month ago
top

Court Rules Parents May Be Liable For What Their Kids Post On Facebook

jimbolauski Re:The Actual Issue (323 comments)

Even if he did make it at home the parents would have to have knowledge about his posting and did nothing to stop him from posting. The parents are being charged because they refused to compel action from their child and remove the page.

about a month ago
top

The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll

jimbolauski Re:Semantics (571 comments)

Of course there is. Come on. Showing your interest starts with things such as eye contact, smiling at somebody, stuff like that. And if there's no response, move on. If there is, talk to her. It's not easy for us geeks, I know, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. :)

Eye Contact, don't you me Stare Rape

about a month ago
top

Court Rules Parents May Be Liable For What Their Kids Post On Facebook

jimbolauski Re:The Actual Issue (323 comments)

That law has little to do with this situation. The act was committed while he was in the care of the school, unless it can be shown that the boy told his parents he was going to make the fake account there is nothing there for the parents to be charged with. Now on to not deleting the account, the law requires parents to prevent actions of a child under their control, the law does not require parents to compel action of a child under their control.

about a month ago
top

Court Rules Parents May Be Liable For What Their Kids Post On Facebook

jimbolauski Re:You have it wrong. (323 comments)

If your kid is in a park, grabs a rock, throws it at someone and causes harm, then you are responsible. Not the parks office, not the city, not the state, and not in the case of this incident, the school.

When the child is at the park they are the responsibility of of the person taking care of them, the parents. When the child is at school they are the responsibility of the school. The school gave the kid access to Facebook, the school did not monitor the child's activity. How would a parent be able to monitor their kids online activity at school?

about a month ago
top

Ask Slashdot: An Accurate Broadband Speed Test?

jimbolauski Re:Really? (294 comments)

20 networks, you should probably try 5GHz WiFi, it's supposed to utilize dynamic frequency selection and dynamic power control and fewer people use it. Even if 5Ghz was widely adopted around you it "should" only slow down if everyone is using it at the same time and some of those people are further away then you are to their wireless router. You will have less range then 2.5GHz but in a crowded apartment complex that is a good thing because there is less chance of your neighbor crapping on your SNR.

about a month and a half ago
top

Chimpanzee "Personhood" Is Back In Court

jimbolauski Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google. (385 comments)

The idea that a corporate person should have freedom of speech is, I think, a problem. For example, it allows them to spend vast amounts of money on political campaigns. This is undemocratic. Corporations don't get to vote or stand for election, but are allowed to have huge influence over politics through money. Since they are not real people they often act without morals or any sense of human decency, and try to get politicians with a similar disposition elected and the law change to reflect their myopic obsession with profit above all else.

The problem with this is that when you boil it down a corporation is just a group of people. That group of people pools their money together and buys adds or donates to politicians in ways that benefit the goals of their group. The rights of a person do not decrease when they are in a group. I would much rather corrupt politicians get removed from office then start limiting speech.

about a month and a half ago
top

Senators Threaten To Rescind NFL Antitrust Exemption

jimbolauski Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword (242 comments)

They do have a right to negotiate how their content is distributed but they are a monopoly and that gives them an unfair advantage to negotiate those terms. Removing the antitrust exemption will allow the government to go after the NFL for these practices, as well as many other practices, rookie pay scale, salary caps, merchandizing, franchising, stadium deals... The NFL is allowed to get away with a lot of things because of this protection. It's all just election cycle dick waving but the NFL should be wary about this gaining traction, if that happens the senators will be forced to use their dicks on the NFL.

about 2 months ago
top

FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps

jimbolauski Re: I never thought I'd say this... (353 comments)

This quote is often used by people that don't know the whole quote or do and intentionally omit the end. Here is the rest of it. "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God." No where does Jesus proclaim that a man is entitled to another man's property.

It seems that the goalposts just moved again. I offered this verse as a response to your statement "I must have missed where in the quote is said that if you don't give up all your possessions and give the money to the poor you will end up in eternal damnation". I did not offer it in support of an argument that a man is entitled to another man's property. This should have been apparent from the context, as I immediately preceeded this verse by the relevant quote from your own post.

How about this where does Jesus say it is required that you have to give up your possessions in order to go to heaven? Your quote is missing the context of the second half of his statement. Jesus does not say that the only way to make it to heaven is to sell all your possessions and give them to the poor.

You moved the goalposts by changing the subject of conversation from "no private property" to "means of production owned by workers", which are two very different things. Socialism does require the means of production being owned by workers. It does not require the absence of private property. If you look through the last few posts, you'll notice that you went from talking about "no private property" to suddenly talking about "means of production owned by the workers". You'll not that my objection was to your "no private property" definition of socialism (which is incorrect), and not your "means of production owned by workers" definition. My latest objection was that you "moved the goalposts" by abandoning your previous definition (which was incorrect) while pretending that your new "means of production owned by workers" definition was what you were saying all along. Also, it's unclear why I have to spell this out for you when it should all be apparent from context.

You going to have to understand the context of what I was saying. It's a big boy concept which means that you can't just look at one sentence you have to look at everything. If we are discussing workers being entitled to more of the profits, a person of average intelligence would be able to grasp that when someone says private property ownership in that context they are talking about workers having a share in the means of production. None of that changes the fact that your comment was about workers that did not invest in capital equipment getting more of the profits that were gained by that equipment. Which is a socialists concept.

Using violence because you think you are entitled to someone else's property is socialism and is how socialism has taken hold.

So when the Mona Lisa was stolen from the Louvre in 1911 by Vincenzo Peruggia, this was socialism? I grow tired of your absurd attempts at redefining socialism. I figured after a few attempts, you'd give up and agree to the standard definition. Clearly I was wrong.

Again I am talking about means of production when I say property, I know it's tough for you to understand context.

It is possible. However, that's orthogonal to the discussion we're having. You stated that workers don't see the full benefit of their labor because they lack an ownership stake in the technology that affords these advances in productive efficiency. The necessary implication of that claim is that an ownership stake in the technology that affords these advances in productive efficiency is the deciding factor when it comes to getting paid.

Your logic has failed you again, it's not necessary that the ownership stake is the deciding factor when it comes to getting paid. The ability to use it is a factor as well, two people one that is qualified to use machinery and one that is not, the one that is qualified will be paid more then the one that can only do manual labor. You are trying to define a grey world in black and white terms it simply won't work.

While I appreciate your condescending attitude, I don't see the problem with the hypothetical situation you set forth. The numbers line up, and everything is working fine. Are you offering this as an example of just how easy it would be for society to transition away from the compulsory-labor model we have now? If so, well done.

This was your quote.

that rewarding lazy behavior and creating more lazy people doesn't negatively impact those who "work hard" nor does it necessarily have any adverse effect on society as a whole.

If you go by my model they people working now have 6.5% less then before the lazy revolution, I would count that as negatively impacting those who work hard. I know you really wish you could do nothing get something in return and not impact anybody else but it's not true.

about 2 months ago
top

FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps

jimbolauski Re: I never thought I'd say this... (353 comments)

And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

This quote is often used by people that don't know the whole quote or do and intentionally omit the end. Here is the rest of it. "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God." No where does Jesus proclaim that a man is entitled to another man's property.

Yes, you can. Indeed, it is required to be so. That's not the same as "no private property", though. You've just moved the goalposts.

How did I do that, please don't tell me it's because I didn't explicitly say owning the means of production? We are talking about worker owner relationships, your quote was about the threat of workers rioting because the owners are pocketing what is rightfully theirs. That has nothing to do with owning a house, car, or any other possession, it's hard to believe you are that dumb.

The use of violence implies that the workers are entitled to the profits beyond what they originally agreed to, and they are simply taking what is theirs.

No, the means of production being owned by the workers is socialism. Threat of violence is merely one mechanism through which socialism can be brought about. The threat of violence can similarly be used to bring about other forms of socioeconomic organization. It's not peculiar to socialism. Capitalists have used the threat of violence against workers as well; was this also socialism?

Could you find where I stated that violence is only a tool of socialism? Didn't think so? Using violence because you think you are entitled to someone else's property is socialism and is how socialism has taken hold.
Vladimire Lenin "Peaceful surrender of power by the bourgeoisie is possible, if it is convinced that resistance is hopeless and if it prefers to save its skin. It is much more likely, of course, that even in small states socialism will not be achieved without civil war, and for that reason the only programme of international Social-Democracy must be recognition of civil war."

You argued that it was their ownership of technology that entitled them to the gains afforded by it, did you not? Or are you now saying that its their work, not the ownership stake, that entitles them to reap the majority of the benefits provided by technology? Make up your mind.

Is it possible that the owner is in his tractor plowing the fields? Here is your quote.

However, we've established that the people footing the bill aren't working hard, they're merely owning capital.

That has not been established the people footing the bill can be working hard, just not doing unskilled labor.

Why wouldn't it fall on the people making the bulk of the money (the capitalists who own technology, as opposed to those who labor)? You seem to be contradicting yourself again.

I'll try to explain it very simply so even you can under stand. These numbers are just for illustration so don't take them literally. We start out with 90% of the people working, those 90% pay for the safety net of the 10% of lazy people 11.11% of their pay goes to the safety net. 5% of the people realize that they too could stop working and live off the safety net. Now 85% are paying for 15%, and pay 17.64% of their pay for the safety net. You simply can't have more people taking the same amount out while having fewer people put something in unless the people putting something in put in more.

about 2 months ago

Submissions

top

Topless lovelies playing Wii

jimbolauski jimbolauski writes  |  more than 6 years ago

jimbolauski (882977) writes "This wonderful discovery, via Gizmodo, mashing topless women, video games, and a hint of Baby oil into 12 great clips.


OK, it goes like this: Get a Nintendo Wii. An assorted group of topless buxom bombshells. Five gallons of Johnson & Johnson Baby oil. Mix it all with a lot of Wii games and a few cameras for some multi-angle action. The result: extremely not-safe-for-work and surprisingly entertaining videos that ask you "What game are they playing" after watching the girls play for a few minutes.

NSFW http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/not-safe-for-work-wii-playing/very-nsfw-video-beautiful-topless-girls-playing-wii-329839.php"

Link to Original Source

Journals

top

jimbolauski jimbolauski writes  |  about 9 years ago There are two kind of hippies in this world the ones that don't shower, work, and want hand outs all the time. Get a JOB hippie and leave me alone. dude! The second kind is the wanna be hippie they have jobs and shower but for some reason they idolize the dirty smelly hippies. They are even worse because they idolize one of the most foul creatures on earth the dirty hippie.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?