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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:a phone (Score 1) 237

by Comrade Ogilvy (#49479969) Attached to: Chess Grandmaster Used iPhone To Cheat During Tournament
Which is indeed a great accomplishment. But whether it is the equivalent of being as good a chess player as the best human is a choice of definitions. Normal humans do not get to claim to be the best player of game X, without grinding through the ladders and/or tournaments. That is a very real cost with potential significant long term downsides the computer player skipped over.

Comment: Re:a phone (Score 1) 237

by Comrade Ogilvy (#49472483) Attached to: Chess Grandmaster Used iPhone To Cheat During Tournament
LOL. My serious counterargument is to be genuinely as good as a human player, the computer program should qualify for the big name tournament by entering lesser many tournaments and racking up a game history that could be studied for weaknesses. IMHO Kasparov played on a not level field, because his long career was open to study and his computer opponent's was not.

Comment: Re:Reason: for corporations, by corporations (Score 1) 489

by Comrade Ogilvy (#49464177) Attached to: Reason: How To Break the Internet (in a Bad Way)

And I would further emphasize that my argument is actually the solid libertarian one: What does the contract say? A real libertarian would go straight to that point. But this author is not a libertarian -- he is a ridiculous shill for rapine corporations.

Mind you, I might actually be okay with the ISPs spelling out the truth: "We promise X bandwidth for our Comcast High Speed Certified Content Providers (tm) and Y bandwith to the real internet." But Comcast does not want to spell out the truth. They just want to break the contract and blame someone else, as an excuse to demand more money, precisely because they know that this is area of law exists in a libertarian dystopia where it is not practical for individual customers to enforce the contracts in court./p?

Comment: Re:Banalities.. (Score 2) 109

by Comrade Ogilvy (#49447863) Attached to: A Data-Driven Exploration of the Evolution of Chess

As someone who has played little chess but quite a few war/board games, the article is unsurprising, too. At first glance, chess looks like an offense heavy game. In offense heavy games, aggressive moves, even aggressive moves from novices, often provoke errors from novices forced onto defense. But as the game is studied, how to build efficient defenses with implied counterattacks converts offensive potential into defensive potential. Not every game works out that way, but the ones we keep going back to play again and again certainly do.

We could imagine a variant of chess where the first player advantage were much larger. If 80% of the victories went to white, chess would just not be considered as interesting a game. A degree of lopsidedness can actually add to the game, playing black is a slightly bigger challenge, but there is a point where people tend to throw up their hands. The lopsidedness between colors in chess is quite small, as these things go.

Comment: Re:Reason: for corporations, by corporations (Score 5, Insightful) 489

by Comrade Ogilvy (#49441019) Attached to: Reason: How To Break the Internet (in a Bad Way)

The article is a really painful read that takes forever to get to the heart of its points, which seem to be:

In fact, ISP price discrimination is as likely to help new entrants as hurt them. Non-neutrality offers startups the potential to buy priority access, thus overcoming the inherent disadvantage of newness. With a neutral Internet, on the other hand, the advantages of incumbency can't be routed around by buying a leg-up in speed, access, or promotion.

That an incumbent content provider might enter into an agreement with an ISP to gain advantage over its smaller competitors in a non-neutral environment may be a reason to scrutinize such agreements under existing antitrust laws. For instance, if an ISP with dominant market share refused to give access to online content that competed with its own, antitrust law might look askance at such conduct. But it doesn't justify presumptively hamstringing an ISP's commercial arrangements when such conduct isn't remotely typical."

These are actually gobsmacking arguments for any serious libertarian to make. First of all, the idea that a new service should rightly throw money at the problem because new guys cannot compete by merely being simply better on an even playing field completely demolishes the heart of libertarian theory. Second of all, "gee, the gov't might save us from this abuse with antitrust laws" is an endorsement of the idea gov't should solve these kinds of problems. If antitrust law is good, perhaps net neutrality rules would be better? You cannot fall back on gov't competence in an argument against gov't oversight.

But for me, neither argument matters, even if they were correct. The real problem is the ISPs are making clear promises to their customers, and then they are trying to shake down the content providers with the threat of failing to meet the customer's reasonable expectations, based on what is written in the contract. When I pay for a promise for bandwidth, I want that bandwidth. I do not want the ISP to make secret re-negotiations about what bandwidth really means.

Comment: Re:Systemic and widespread? (Score 0) 489

by Comrade Ogilvy (#49440745) Attached to: The Courage of Bystanders Who Press "Record"

Actually, you counterargument does not address sribe's point at all. An UNARMED suspect fleeing the scene is (almost) by definition someone who fails to meet the threshold of "poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others".

In fact, even an armed suspect may fail to meet that standard, which is the actual reason the courts spelled this out in the first place. "Well, he was armed and seemed angry and failed to comply with police orders" is not sufficient reason to gun down a fleeing suspect, unless you know specifics about the suspect that indicate that they are someone likely to use lethal force.

Comment: Re: Oh, Okay (Score 1) 587

by Comrade Ogilvy (#49415097) Attached to: Hugo Awards Turn (Even More) Political
I agree. Even before 1960, retreads of "Frankenstein's monster runs amok" and "here in our dying galactic empire..." were run of the mill. In fact, Asimov's great accomplishment is to figure out how to start discussing ideas about how robots might affect human society that did not involve any machines running amok.

Comment: Re: Oh, Okay (Score 1) 587

by Comrade Ogilvy (#49415015) Attached to: Hugo Awards Turn (Even More) Political

It may not be a dystopic story, but it takes place in an extremely dystopic setting that seems sophisticated to teenagers because it employs slightly subtle royalist and "ends justifies the means" arguments. The idea that there could be non-feudal or non-authoritarian forms of gov't that could sway the human future are simply handwaved away with the suggestion that such societies can never effectively compete.

As for the story itself, is not clear that Paul makes the world a better place in any clearly positive nameable way. It is implied he prevents complete evil (the Harkonnens) from making a grab for the imperial throne. But the fact the Harkonnens could even attempt that is really a side effect of the nominally religious Bene Gesserit having abandoned pretenses of morality for a chance to seize more power.

Comment: Re:If no deal, then Iran *will* get nukes (Score 1) 383

"a nuclear program for decades" does not really mean anything. It is a deliberately wishy washy description that could include a single guy with a Physics bachelors who downloads stuff off the web and reads standard textbooks. We built our first bombs in less than three years, after proof that chain reactions were possible at the the Chicago pile, back seven decades ago. With so much useful information about nuclear fission out in the public record today, that a program that last decades without building a weapon is actually evidence of a lack of enthusiasm in going nuclear at all.

The secret of the nuclear bomb is that it is practical to build a nuclear bomb. Any nation who really makes it a priority is likely to succeed within 5 or 6 years. Several nations have demonstrated exactly that.

Comment: Re:MAD does not apply (Score 1) 383

Even if Iran does not use weapons directly, they can provide small nuclear devices to terrorist groups. We'll be seeing those within a few years. Iran has backed a number of terrorist groups (like Hamas) for many, many years.

But even for direct attacks from Iran - remember that Iran is full of many, many people who are basically innocents, rules by leaders that are almost wholly insane and do not care if their own people die.

If Iran were actually ruled by leaders who thought that the 12th Iman would return and kiss their own crispy foreheads as well as the crispy heads of their grandchildren, they could have simply rained down conventional missiles on Israel and gotten that response. Why not go to heaven sooner, rather than later?

You do not get the full benefits of membership in the nuclear club by acting crazy. The crazy talk is not actually helping North Korea, it is only causing China to see the day to whip North Korea into better behavior is coming sooner than they expected.

Held onto as a last resort, nuclear weapons are a positive asset. Employed recklessly, nuclear weapons are a liability -- because once you have been proven to be completely reckless, the entire nuclear club with see the reasonableness of scraping your sorry nation off the face of the earth with nuclear fire. Where is the fun in that?

Furthermore, letting nuclear weapons out of your fortified safe places is dangerous. Crazy terrorist groups do crazy things. In the case of Iran, the ME is filled with enemies. Can you be sure it will not be captured and used on YOU? Absolutely sure? Is this a risk that is so worthwhile? Mossad is likely to figure out where the bomb came from -- there are only a few possible sources. So your plausible deniability game does not guarantee anything.

Comment: Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score 1) 334

For instance, if you live in Arizona or Alabama or Oklahoma and you think Dems are the lesser evil, you're really wasting your vote on a Democrat presidential candidate because there's zero chance those states will turn blue. If half the Dem voters in those states voted for, say, the Green Party, we'd really start seeing some interesting politics.

You should read up on what Lincoln thought about "splitters". He strongly disagreed with exactly what you suggest, based on his political experiences. One party splitting tends to severely punish the point of view of all those in the split group -- not always, but usually. The problem is that the non-split party has a cakewalk to victory.

BTW, I do sympathize with your point of view, and I often vote for third parties, as well as the major parties.

Comment: Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score 1) 334

I really don't believe Romney would have been worse. I really don't see how he could be.

Obama has done everything that people hated Bush for and more.

You have a lack of imagination, my friend. Dear old Mitt as much as admitted that he knew squat about foreign policy. His solution? Call Bibi. Bibi is a man who will stalwartly defend Israel from Iran down to the last drop of American blood.

"I really don't see how he could be." just does not make any sense. Maybe you doubt Mitt would be worse. I can respect that. But not imagining how he could be worse is really not thinking through how much fun we had in Iraq.

However bad you might think Obama has been, we could very easily do much much worst. Enough of the voters saw Obama as a known quantity, and Romney failed to make the case he knew any better.

Comment: Re:Wait ... (Score 2) 196

by Comrade Ogilvy (#49096331) Attached to: A123 Sues Apple For Poaching Employees
It is quite common to find a good hire, and then be very interested in who they would recommend. Or the people left behind ask about this new opportunity the hire left for, become interested, and ask to have their resumes forwards. I have seen a number of hires that come in such clusters of 3 or 4 in Valley, and I am not a well connect or a highly knowledgeable person on this topic. Even the "cluster" is spread out over a few months, it can feel like "unfair" poaching if a certain key group is denuded.

Comment: Re:More than a little retarded (Score 4, Insightful) 129

by Comrade Ogilvy (#49021895) Attached to: The Technologies That Betrayed Silk Road's Anonymity
Yup. The real secret to not being caught by Columbo is not, as would be geniuses tend to think, by having a "full proof" scheme by which Columbo will never be able to prove you did it. It is by never showing up on Columbo's suspect list in the first place. Ulbricht's post that reveals his email was probably his doom, putting him on a select list of mere hundreds of people who knew about Silk Road early in the game. Then it becomes a numbers game, and the list shortens and shortens until the Dread Pirate has made one too many small errors.

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye