Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Not that expensive (Score 1) 244

"No respect for the history of film"?

"Is too young to know what the fuck you want"?

Are you seriously thinking like that?

Ok... let's start with making this simple. It's a rectangle screen with pictures playing on it. After watching everything from the recent Walt Disney documentary to Lawrence of Arabia or the classic version of Spartacus to Bill and Teds, etc... some of us have seen a lot of movies and a lot of DVD covers and trailers.

Most of us have already decided what we want to see and what is not worth the effort. Occasionally, we encounter someone saying "hey have you seen?"... like for example, I've never been ever slightly interested in seeing Clockwork Orange and I'm told by people who are obsessed with film that this is disgraceful.

I honestly enjoy a lot of modern "shit cinema" just as I enjoyed a lot of classic "shit cinema". But let me tell you a secret... unless there's inherent educational value to a film... it's all shit cinema. One could suggest you could get a better understanding of behavior in different cultures and eras simply by the shit cinema they watched, but you don't need much more than a small sample set to accomplish this. I for example really learned a great deal about culture from "Guys and Dolls"... for example, how Cuba was perceived by New Yorkers before the missile crisis. But still, it's mostly shit cinema and I like it.

Now... if you seem to think that there's more to watching a rectangular screen than simply putting your brain into "I'm stupid, I'll let someone else bombard my brain with lights and sounds while I sit here and rot for a while" mode, then you really need to consider a real life. Maybe join a gym or a chess club.

I hear there are now apps you can use to find experimental sex encounters with strangers. You can probably make the movies something more interesting by trying that out.

On the other hand... if you take movies seriously and you consider them a great part of your life and something that is part of defining you... excellent.

There are some of us who have seen thousands of movies and spent time trying to find something else to watch and simply decided it's not worth the effort. It's just a movie. We've seen everything that seems particularly interesting to us. We aren't interested in pissing away time we could be on Slashdot by researching yet another movie. New releases are nice because it makes it easier to find something and if our choice is "Paranormal Activity..." I think a nice walk or a visit to the coffee shop sounds better.

Comment Re:Not that expensive (Score 1) 244

On principle... I'm with you.

But really, if I can pay $50 to see a new release vs $10-$20 to see an old one which I probably haven't seen because I wasn't really willing to pay to see it earlier... I think that $50 is reasonable. Besides... I think if it's the family watching, $50 is MUCH cheaper than the theater.

The good news is, that if you stop watching commercial TV and you stop reading printed media, you probably are like me and have no idea that there's a new film out until it hits iTunes. So, I get to see things as soon as they come out :) Well as soon as I noticed they've come out. :)

I personally think it's more important for kids. My teenagers like to be able to talk about new films as they come out... especially ones like Warcraft and Assassin's Creed. So, as part of the community thing and avoiding being an outcast, etc... it's kinda important to see that film to fit in.

Comment Re:Not that expensive (Score 2) 244

Agreed... my DVD/Bluray collection was well over 2000 discs before I packed them away and stored them in a closet where they'll be forgotten until I no longer have anything left to play them on (pretty sure that's soon).

I used to buy the discs and them immediately rip them to hard drive and store them on a server in my closet so we could watch them on any screen in the house.

These days we have a few alternatives

About 150-200 films and 2000 TV episodes on my iTunes library at this time... I was able to remove DRM until about 3 months ago without re-encoding. Now, I have to find a new place to buy since I don't have Apple Devices everywhere and HDCP restrictions limit my ability to playback on some of my screens that I connect via SDI instead of HDMI. I only buy films if I can strip the DRM to allow playback wherever I need it.

We have Netflix, but it's selection is nice for Netflix originals, but they are missing nearly every film I've searched for recently... for example Full Metal Jacket. So, I don't even bother with Netflix for anything other than a once in a while thing.

Youtube... I'm not 100% sure if it's always legal, I'm counting on Google to manage that, but we often find stuff like Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, etc... and such on there.

Finally, there's the torrent sites.

I end up at the torrent sites because I have an iTunes Movie or DVD I can't play on a device or screen which I paid for. I sometimes feel mildly guilty if I own a DVD copy and I end up downloading the HD version as the studio has had to spend the money to release the HD version and I didn't pay for that. But if I want to watch a film I've bought and I can't because of DRM that's been put in place to deal with pirates, then I will resort to doing what the pirates do in order to be able to watch it.

The only time in the past 10 years I've watched a movie by straight out piracy was when I missed the last 20 minutes of one of the Hobbit films because the movie theater parking lot was prepay and I didn't realize that after paying about $125 to see a movie, I would have to watch... wait for it.... 40 minutes of trailers and commercials. So I let the wife and kids finish watching while I moved the car to a different parking space. So I came home and downloaded a cam and watched the ending at home.

I personally would gladly pay the studios $50 for a film... it's a total non-issue. I have absolutely no problem paying "gouging rates" to avoid having to deal with movie theaters. Besides, $50 is just not a lot of money anymore. The middle class (not middle income... middle income IS NOT middle class) should have a joint household income of a minimum of $60,000 a year in 1st world countries. It's far more likely to be between $100,000 and $200,000. I highly doubt the middle class will even notice the $50.

Comment Re: Not that expensive (Score 1) 244

Pretty cool... I can sometimes find a sale on a tickets for about $12 a piece.

Besides, if you buy anything at all while watching that film... popcorn, soft drinks, etc... you're still making it profitable for the theater. I'm not sure how much the theater pays for you to see the film, but let's guess it's probably about $2.

Comment Re:Not that expensive (Score 1) 244


Currently, I pay about $15 a ticket and also have to drive to the city to see it on a big screen surrounded by people I simply have no interest in being surrounded by. I can't pause and take a break if I want and frankly, I pay at least $25-$30 in parking. Add the cost of popcorn, drinks and candy and then add that I'm also likely to take the family to eat dinner downtown as well since going to the movies is such a bloody expensive thing that it's a "Special Occasion" treat so why not?

I think in the end, I haven't managed to go to the movie without spending at least $250 with the wife and kids since the kids outgrew happy meals. I suppose we could rough it and maybe get it to about $150 if we skip the meal, but consider the alternative.

Rent a movie for $50
Cook dinner, maybe seasoned roast pork with a red wine sauce, asparagus, garlic and onion mashed potatoes... $15 for four people
Make popcorn (have a small theater popper with proper oil and flavocol) about $1 - $2
A few cans of soda $3
1kg Bag of loose candy from the Swedish candy store in the city... $12

Now, I blew the money a few years back on a 720p projector (would be nicer with better... but... it's what I have and it's pretty good) and painted a room dark matte colors to reduce reflection. I have a 5.1 Sony stereo which would make an audiofil cry, but unless I cover the room in noise dampening foam... so be it.

So, we can gather on a couch and watch movies in more comfort, eat better... I can have a beer or prosecco while watching... and I'll have spent maybe $90 by the time I'm done. And the wife and kids and snuggle on me while we watch the film.

Why in hell would anyone ever spend money on a movie theater? Sure it sounds extravagent to have your own home theater, but consider I spent less building it than it would have cost to go to the movies 8 times.

And then when we go out... which is often enough, we can walk around the city or at the cabins in the mountains overlooking the city and enjoy the view, talk with the people etc... going to the movies is basically paying to sit on someone else's couch and keep silent.

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 273

hmm... I'm not sure if I'm with you on this. I agree it's hard to see this as a setback. I don't believe it is. I imagine we learned a great deal about the process from the failure and should be able to achieve better results the next time.

I don't have a clear understanding of how we could apply such science into applied engineering today, but I'm wondering if we learned a lot more than is visible on the surface. Let's consider that we now know how to create that much pressure. Let's also consider that we know that helium can actually become metallic.

Ok... let's also consider that once the material is compressed, the energy is stored and it may be possible the experts in forming diamond crystals will be able to engineer a more perfect structure for the containment of the metal without the need to apply additional pressure. It is also possible that as a room-temperature super conductor, we might be able to learn how to encapsulate liquid helium in a crystalline structure on a quasi-molecular (proper term?) level. We may be able to find a way to produce some sort of liquid like beads of minuscule room temperature superconductors. I may be possible to crystallize large amounts (billions of parts) of metallic hydrogen in arrays of crystal so that it might be etched.

We could also possible find that this could be an alternative method of storing large amounts of energy for use in space. Imagine a lightweight material able to propel a turbine within a generator as the energy is released? That could be a safer and more practical alternative to nuclear radiation. We would only need a method of storing the material in cells and releasing the material in a controlled fashion.

What about all the other options. While superconductivity is sexy, can this process be effectively applied to other materials? Could it be done on a large scale? Can this be a theoretical alternative method to producing nearly perfect structures as opposed to carbon nanotubes? Could we get the benefits of a perfect structure but on a larger scale? Could we find a way to push particles of other materials through a compression chamber of this sort to produce wires that are less volatile?

I would imagine that the scientists involved with this project have though in many of these same directions. They have likely thought in more. But I believe that at this point of their research, they need to learn more about the structure of the material they have created and hopefully identify better solutions to contain the compressed energy.

Comment Re:implying incompetence ? (Score 5, Insightful) 273

We live in a society where companies like Diesel who run major fashion lines and advertising campaigns to glorify stupid. In all fairness, Diesel was trying to suggest that one shouldn't always take the "smart and sensible path", but people wore shirts saying "Smart is ok, but stupid is fun". The people wearing that clothing seemed to believe that doing the stupid thing could be far more productive and constructive than having and idea and properly planning and executing it in a constructive manor.

We had a president who for 8 years told the American people that even as the son of one of the most powerful men in the world (Director of Central Intelligence or VP of the US as the time) was a C+ student... meaning that his professors, knowing there would be a call from one of the most powerful men on earth if they failed his son, gave him the lowest possible grade they thought they could get away with... in a business school. Now mind you, I really really like GWB, I think he is one of the nicest people on earth, a man with the absolute best intentions with a heart as pure as laboratory diamonds. Sadly, he's dumb as a brick and has absolutely no capacity for understanding the consequences of his decisions.

When presented with the choice of Al Gore who is only mildly more intelligent but at least as far as politicians are concerned is a mental giant or GWB, the American people felt they associated much better with GWB. Even though Al Gore would likely make decisions to improve the lives of all people and would do his absolute best to represent the emotional, spiritual, etc... interests of all Americans, he came off as too smart and too nerdy (and too much of a know it all) and the people sided with the C+ flunky who had a good heart and spoke to the people in a way that they could relate to. I don't believe that was a calculated action by GWB as I believe calculation of any type is not his strength. I believe his sheer dumbness allowed people to better love and identify with him. I feel terrible that now that I know more about him that I said so many bad things about him while he was in office. It was like picking on the slow kid at school who couldn't defend himself because he didn't even understand the insults. He might be one of the best people on earth at heart and as a representative of the vast majority of the American people, he was spectacular. Too bad he was also expected to provide leadership, manage money and a military a role he was clearly no suited for. This is a very strong case for separating the presidency into president and prime minister.

We also live in a society which glorifies hate and violence. We believe a child who dresses up in camouflage pajamas and spends 8 weeks in basic training should be called a hero for stepping up to protect the American way. Without having the slightest idea of what the American way is other than to dress up in said pajamas, he/she is placed in a position of ultimate judgement. He/she is expected to make conscientious decisions whether to take the life of a mother, a father, a son or a daughter. He is expected with no more experience than that of a child to represent the American people at the end of a gun and make judgement calls that have overwhelming impact on society as we know it. We call these children heroes and we praise them in media, advertisements and more. People forfeit business class and first class seats in support of their sacrifices for freedom.

Consider that that child, fresh out of high school will make $18,802.80 a year as a private and can easily escalate to $22,165.20 by doing their jobs with some level of diligence within a year. Also consider they are provided with excellent quality (though questionable tasting) food, excellent medical care, excellent dental benefits, clothing, housing, career education, transportation and college aid. Their quality of life and standard of living when not at war is approximately equal to a $60,000 a year job at the age of 18 with absolutely no education other than a Basic and AIT provided entirely by the military during which time they are being paid. Given the massive number of positions available for these children that are non-combative, this is the absolute best career path with the absolute best options available in America today. And we celebrate them as heroes for making so many sacrifices for their country.

We do not make heroes out of people who devote 12 years in a university who lose endless nights of sleep and develop mental health conditions because they lack the ability to shut their minds off. We don't celebrate people who spend 10,000 hours developing their minds into works of art capable of consuming, digesting and acting upon data sets consisting of a plethora of complex variables. We don't idolize people who find ways of creating an environment capable of compressing helium to metallic solidity requiring so much force that it s greater than pressures found at the core of the earth.

We mock them.

Even we the nerds mock them.

We see what they've done and do we welcome articles that announce their immense achievements to the world? We read the words of a reporter who clearly is a fool attempting to aggrandize something he clearly doesn't understand to people who are likely able to provide the investments required to repeat the experiment in terms they may understand. Yet that fool sees that it's important to inform the people of these accomplishments and to tell the world that it's necessary to help these researchers. We mock the article. We mock the news. We mock the scientists who created a pressurized environment that achieved such a masterful work of art.

When I read the original article, I was quite busy and didn't have time to investigate it further and eventually forgot it as it's not my particular field of expertise. Reading this follow up article, instead of focusing on the failure, it triggered my mind to be fascinated by the fact that they were able to keep such a massive amount of pressure stable for as long as they did. I started picturing methods of creating such pressure and realized that my understanding of Newton's laws of thermodynamics and motion seem to be contrary to such an achievement. I immediately thought "If every action has an equal and opposite reaction, how would one create such pressure without some sort of stable force to restrict the opposite reaction from going the wrong way?" I considered it would require some sort of vise. I wondered however what kind of material could possibly be strong enough to withstand such pressure. I considered a vise made of laboratory diamond and then wondered how one would make such a mechanism to apply force to the diamond to compress it. Then I saw some comments about lasers being somehow involved and immediately wondered how lasers could be used to create such pressure. Could one make a containment area of a substance like diamond and then apply heat the gasses to increase pressure? Even so, how would one power such a laser in a stable environment for long enough to create ever increasing heat along a temperature gradient so that it would not end in combustion.

I still have absolutely no idea how such a monumental achievement was made but am fascinated by it and am grateful someone dedicated so much of their lives to no only accomplishing this, but also to kissing the butts and doing to boring stuff to get the grants and organize the labs etc...

I am with you. I'm generally one of the people who come here looking for an excuse to flame a bit. That is what Slashdot appears to be for today. But I truly appreciate you standing on a soap box and making the point that sometimes we should expect more from ourselves.

Comment Re:No, SLS Is Going to Be Moth-Balled (Score 1) 303

To be honest, NASA is bloody brilliant and should never be denounced for their awesomeness, I agree wholeheartedly that Apollo would have never happened without NASA. That said, there are endless projects that could never have happened without them. The amount of science and tech they feedback is incredible.

Now... SLS is a project which has dumped billions into the American economy and has been a major component of helping the US recover from the DotCom Boom and later financial distastes of this century. Companies like Lockheed, Boeing and others provide a great service as money launderers for congress trying to stimulate the economy in different regions. They however are bureaucratic cesspools of filth and decay that fail at 9 out of every 10 projects announced since many of those projects really were intended to do nothing more than just feed money into the economy.

SLS would have never happened if it weren't for private space.

How many failed space projects have there been since the original Space Shuttle?

How many years did we fly the Space Shuttle and perpetuate the life of the Space Shuttle before we finally decided we had to move on and finally make something more?

This is because the ULA guys and Boeing never actually needed to complete a project in order to get more money for not completing it. It is too much work to bid on and negotiate for a new space launch vehicle. So, it's better to drag each one out as long as possible milking the government for more funding. NASA has been crippled by the government contractors. What's more is that Boeing and ULA are just so damn big, there was no other companies that could meet the minimum requirements to bid on these contracts, so NASA couldn't even pack up and go somewhere else.

Enter SpaceX and others.

SpaceX has now consistently delivered on inexpensive flights, advancing technology, even making space interesting again. They are a company that survives on launch contracts and while they take funding and government money, as far as I can tell, in the entire lifetime of the company, they haven't taken even as much as just this one SLS contract.

Does this mean that SpaceX is better than government? Nope... but here's the thing, if ULA or Boeing doesn't deliver on space projects now, the government can ask SpaceX or BlueOrigin (who seems to be working with ULA surprisingly enough). This has changed the entire dynamic of the space program. It meant that the NASA, after over 40 years of what generally has always felt like corruption can actually expect their contractors to deliver.

It is also very likely that Boeing and ULA companies may actually save their reputations and do better in business because private space is forcing them to actually be better than they were. Just imagine what would happen if Musk or Bezos got into commercial passenger aircraft and decided to compete with the 787 for example. Planes would cost a tenth as much and be designed to have lower cost of ownership.

These companies have been cornerstones of American accomplishment but when the politicians found out that they could use these companies to stimulate the economy, they started looking for projects to dump money into no matter what the outcome. It was altruistic, but it established a precedent that said "You don't actually have to build anything, just make jobs". And for nearly 30 years, that's what they did.

The design of the SLS, while FRIGGING AWESOME!!!! is just too expensive and placed absolutely no focus on practicality. My guess is a room of NASA scientists and engineers looking at the design and shaking there heads and thinking "This is what we get for that much money?". The entire rocket is probably heavily based on the idea of "If you want something good, we can go back to the drawing board for 10 years, this one we can deliver now".

I loved and adored the Space Shuttle. As a small child when it was being built, I slept snuggling on a stuffed space shuttle doll. There are so many things that made the Space Shuttle awesome and I am sad to know that the space plane concept is dead for now... maybe for the rest of my life. But, can you honestly tell me that the Space Shuttle program was done well by the government?

The Space Shuttle flew 135 missions from 1981 to 2011 with what seems to be an average cost per launch of about $800 million. Are you telling me that with a budget of approximately $1 trillion USD, they couldn't have redesigned the blast shield so that it wouldn't require each and every tile to be removed and inspected one by one by human eyes for each flight? They couldn't have designed more efficient boosters on more efficient fuels? They couldn't have upgraded the computers to more modern technology? How about the Endeavour built for first launch in 1992? They couldn't have made major technical improvements on the design?

Come on... yes, the government and the crooks at Lockheed, Boeing and others got it done, and damn was the space shuttle awesome, but the technology completely stalled for decades because the government and those crooks were as fast and agile as drunk snails in a salt patch. With Lockheed and Boeing bureaucrats involved, it was a miracle we ever launched the Space Shuttle at all.

SLS is a whole different scale from Falcon 9 Heavy, but in most cases, being able to launch more isn't that important. What's more important is being able to launch more reliably. SLS is not a reusable platform. It is excessively expensive. It is possible to launch dozens of alternative smaller rockets for what just one of these cost. But to be honest, for what that thing cost, I would have much rather seen a new space station capable of hosting in-space assembly and deployment of projects like space only vehicles.

Comment Re:Holocaust 2.0 (Score 2) 142

Let me respond... as an actual, real life, genuine, pure-blooded... recovering Jew... I can't tell whether I should take offense to this or laugh my ass off at it.

Please tell me that you have some Jewish in your blood line... 1/64th on your sister-in-law's mother's side is good enough. Unless you happen to be either a Jew, Gypsy, or.. well a plastic toy doll that sends everything children say to American servers for logging, it's just outright offensive that you would make such a comparison.

Also, I fear the lash-back that will come from the Dollocaust deniers.

P.S. - Recovering from Judaism is similar to recovering from alcohol addiction or Catholicism. Once you're in, you're in. There's nothing you can do which makes you any less Jewish culturally, you can deny it, you can fight it, but as soon as there's latkas and draydels and nagging old ladies gumming their lips peddling out guilt, it's all over.

Comment Re:Mickey Maus (Score 2) 363

As a father, I've had the displeasure of having PewDiePie as a regular member of my house. For example, me, ny son, my daughter and my niece were walking in Manhattan, which is in itself unlikely to happen as they live in Florida and we live in Norway. But we were on vacation with one another and my son and I were joking with each other and I said "You suck" and the two girls who see each other every second or third year simultaneously say "You swallow" which horrified me but apparently was a great bonding experience for the girls who immediately giggled, compared notes and came to the realization they're both primarily educated by PewDiePie.

I have been horrified and offended by PewDiePie before. Let me also say that as a recovering Jew, I lived growing up surrounded by family who were escapees, survivors, etc... of the holocaust. What I found is simple, if a Jew were to do something as stupid as what PewDiePie did, it would be distasteful irony, if anyone else did, it would be antisemitic.

Now, the Germans didn't systematically destroy 6 millions Jews and Gypsies and Black people. They systematically destroyed 6 million Jews, 5 million Gypsies and I have no idea about the black people, by I'd imagine the number would be horrifying as well. If you're going to be an SJW, you have to try and be at least a little close to right.

Let's settle some things... was Hitler anti-Jew (Antisemitic requires that the person is a semite. I challenge any European Jew to prove they are actually a semite), yes he was. Was he trying to eliminate Jews, by his own words and hand, he was. But only a filthy and disgusting person would call the holocaust the "Jewish Holocaust" because he was a pretty equal opportunity hater. He wanted to kill everyone that was easy to target. Jews, Gypsies and Blacks all have something in common, they are easy to find, they are clearly different than other people (at least visually) and it's really easy to convince massive numbers of people they are the cause of their problems.

Wanna see something horrifying, look at how easily Trump is manipulating people to get his "Great Wall of Trump" build so he'll accomplish immortality. He is using the same sort of gifts and rhetoric that Hitler used. He'll give anyone anything they want so long as they let him build that wall. He'll tell us all "we're better than those dark skinned Mohammad lovers are... they're trying to kill us.. those Mexicans want to take your jobs, your homes and your daughters, let me build that wall!!!!"

Now, here's the thing... PewDiePie is a moron. He has made himself rich and famous by being a one man Jack-Ass Online show. His audience is a massive number of young and impressionable children and what has he now taught them? He taught them that it's a sick world where people would be willing to hold such horrible signs for $5. He showed that people would be willing to sell their souls for $5.

It's disgusting in my opinion that children should learn something so terrible at such a young age. What he did taught first world children about how bad life is for some people that $5 is the price of their conscience. He showed that people could be easily bought or manipulated for almost nothing. I'm 100% sure that the people holding those signs didn't believe in them, I am also pretty sure that the guy in Sri Lanka was more concerned about how long he could live on that $5. I don't think he knows or cares about who Hitler was. But I also know that he can be bought for $5.

Dude, I think what he did was a service. I think that out of all the stupid shit he's said and done, he's actually done something right for once. I think he demonstrated outright how easy it is to convince people "Hitler Good, Jew Bad". He showed that a person in that type of position will go where he/she believes the food is. It takes very very little to convince people to dispose of the last good thing left in their hearts when there's nothing left in their stomachs.

What could you ask a man/women do for $10 or a promise of $5 a day. What if you established a trust fund for their child that paid $5 a day for 40 years, could you convince someone to commit suicide on camera? What would it cost to make one of those people hurt or kill someone? If I offered them $5 a day, would they hurt a friend or someone they loved?

Could I, with a full PayPal account start a war? Could I cause a general assembly in a square in a non-first world country to protest or start a riot? Could I buy an Anti-Trump rally? Could I buy an Anti-Muslim rally in a country where people are put to death for these things? If I could buy an hour of time from 5,000 people to gather in one place, what could I make them do for their $5. Could I force them to listen? Could a teach them to hate? Could I rouse them to fight?

Of course getting 5,000 people in a place like Jakarta for example would be impossible right? What if one day I paid all the people in the city to carry signs advertising fiver "Easiest $5 you ever made". Could I do horrible things?

PewDiePie's disgusting behavior should be lauded this time. He helped identify something horrible. Fiver and its peers can be the grounds for the rise of the next Hitler. A single stolen credit card number and some creativity could be enough to start revolutions.

So get off your high horse and use the gray lump between your ears to better understand what we have seen. If the Jews (my family) would have used the gray shit between their ears, they probably could have stopped the holocaust before it started. Instead they behaved all huffy and pissy like you. If you believe what he did wasn't a joke, fine. i agree. It was not a joke, but in the spirit which it was done, we learned something very important and if you're gonna be a SJW, then at least stop being a f-ing stupid one!

Comment Re:Trade union fighting for survival (Score 1) 723

I think that this is a very short sighted opinion on their behalf. First of all, we're all facing a market where there will be too many people and too few jobs. In a circumstance like that, we need to be prepared with and organized method of supporting the people while trying to identify alternative sources of jobs.

In America, they faced this problem and GWB and Obama provided a work solution where instead of reeducating people and producing real jobs, they employed 3 million American's directly in military (over a million), the TSA (over 1.2 million) and the DHS and other agencies. In addition, they employed many more indirectly since for every employee you employ, a series of support employees will be needed. They paid their employees large enough sums to redistribute the wealth a few levels and create many Walmart and McDonalds jobs. In addition, the government took on the burden of covering a substantial portion of employee salaries for large job makers. For example, Walmart pays minimum wage but provides support to their employees to help them register for government benefits such as welfare and food stamps... all while Walmart pays dividends roughly equal to what the government is paying to support their employees.

The truth is, America has proven what happens when you have a very large unskilled workforce with very little education. But they decided that instead of basic income which could provide these people the opportunity to study and improve themselves, they would instead give them jobs which would be better than just having people laying around doing nothing. Instead, now they stand around doing nothing while wearing uniforms. A very large part of the money the TSA and DHS consumes can be recovered by taxing people using the airports and immigration systems. Currently, over 70% of the cost of a coach plane ticket to the U.S. is to cover TSA and DHS USCIS fees.

Finland is trying an alternative method. Instead of dooming people to an existence of nothingness where their only value to the world is to wear a uniform that makes you look like a prison inmate at airports, they are trying to see if they can motivate people to do more than just keep a sofa from floating away by providing enough money to scrape by on to the truly unambitious while hoping the people will use it as an opportunity to do something more.

Many of the people could use this opportunity to start "work from home" businesses or can afford to help someone else start a company doing something. As a programmer, I would welcome a government stipend that would support me and my family long enough to develop a product that would take 2-3 years to make but wouldn't ever be made if I had to earn money to feed myself while doing it. I could make far better products if I wasn't desperate to meet certain deadlines like "mortgage must be paid".

There's also the issue that I on average pay about 12 times as much tax as the average person. I actually pay about 6 full middle class salaries worth of tax each year. I would like some of that money to be paid to intelligent and creative people who want to start businesses but can't because they can't feed themselves while they're getting started.

This program is just an alternative to what the American's did. GWB and Obama on behalf of America chose to implement a form of communism (almost Soviet style) to solve the problem of too many people and not enough jobs. They made a lot of shit jobs for stupid people and locked them into them by paying them more than they were worth and guaranteeing they couldn't leave as no one would pay them as much.

Finland is hoping that instead of ruining their population by beating them down into a greater depth of stupidity, they can provide them the means to have an opportunity to be creative and hopefully create new business that wouldn't be as easily susceptible to being replaced by outsourcing or automation. That could be more services, it could be more careers related to arts or vanity. There are endless opportunities, but without a secure basic income permitting these people to try these things out without the risks, they will never come to fruition.

What is missing from what I can see is a clear means of helping those people realize their potential. They should offer some of the more creative ones career opportunities to motivate people and push them to be creative.

Slashdot Top Deals

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more. -- Bill Hoest