Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Oligopolies usually suck (Score 1) 82

by Curunir_wolf (#48666209) Attached to: Comcast-TWC Merger Review On Hold

Wrong question. Why is the Sherman Anti-Trust Act no longer enforced? That's the question.

It is. That law was designed to encourage large companies to spend lots of money on Washington lobbyists, to provide plenty of private-money jobs for the insiders that like to slide between public positions and private ones. So it's working as designed. Microsoft went from spending the least amount of political influence money of any Fortune 500 company to spending pretty much the most.

Comment: Re:Fine (Score 1) 290

by Curunir_wolf (#48662751) Attached to: Hotel Group Asks FCC For Permission To Block Some Outside Wi-Fi

I think they should be allowed to do it on their premises.

However they should be required to post signs in conspicuous places that alert the user to the blocking "ACHTUNG! We block personal wifi here, fetch your wallet bitch!" as well as on sales literature.

I guarantee you that if the FCC ignores their petition, they will be requiring all guests to sign an agreement allowing them block personal hotspots.

Comment: Re:Interesting (Score 1) 290

by Curunir_wolf (#48662733) Attached to: Hotel Group Asks FCC For Permission To Block Some Outside Wi-Fi

More or less. If you build a faraday cage around your house, that's legal. If you build a jammer, that is illegal.

So is that what Marriott's "Wi-Fi monitoring system" did? All the jammers I've heard of jam ALL the signals, not just selected ones. The article says it prevented "customers from connecting to the Internet through their personal Wi-Fi hotspots." Not sure what they were doing, there, it's not really explained. How would a jammer block a HotSpot without interfering with the hotel's Wi-Fi - it would be the same type of signal. It seems like they would have had to use something a little more focused - like detecting "unauthorized" SSIDs and somehow interfering with those connections.

Is anyone familiar with this system?

Comment: Re:This is not the problem (Score 1) 677

by Curunir_wolf (#48626677) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

You see, no mention about my own position on this. Just a chain of cause-and-effect elements.

Totally skewed by your own perceptions, which are incorrect.

You see, under a free and global market there's no way you can avoid (some) corporations to grow to high level; then there's no way you can avoid them (because they are so big) bribing or lobbying government to pass laws in their favour, then rinse an repeat.

This is an assertion without foundation. You're dismissing any of the many corrective features of consumers and competition in the market. You're also assuming that there is no corrective mechanism for corruptions in your assumed democratically elected representative body. You have a lot of assumptions of elements in your model that are not necessary for free markets to exist and thrive. Indeed, history tells us that even huge and abusive corporations like Standard Oil cannot continue indefinitely. Look carefully at the history and you'll see that the "trust busting" activities of the Federal government during that episode was driven by corrupt ambitions of politicians, and the market was ALREADY CORRECTING. Standard Oil was losing market share, and competition, as well as blowback from high-level consumers, was working to bring things back into equilibrium.

Besides, we don't have anything better, or even as good, on a large scale.

Comment: Re:This is not the problem (Score 1) 677

by Curunir_wolf (#48625139) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

Only when you cherrypick your examples.

No need for that. People that complain about capitalism never want to look at more than, at most, about 150 years of history. Look at a minimum of 800-1000 years if you want a significant sample size.

Please, first define capitalism

WTF? So you're going to ask a question like this as some sort of trap, where you pick apart everything I said. I guess you picked this up from Sean Hannity. Not taking the bait, sorry. Find your own definition. It's not hard. Keep in mind that in a free market (that's what I'm talking about, free market capitalism), the producers chase consumer resources. Consumers call the shots by voting for the best producers with their money. It requires enough regulation to prevent violence and fraud from having much of an impact. There's one of the issues with Somalia. It also requires limits on regulation to prevent THAT from having a significant impact on markets. Heavily regulated markets incentive producers to focus their efforts on influencing the regulating authority instead of serving consumer demands.

I'll tell you how cronyism/corporatism becomes unavoidable.

... in your twisted mind that values the well being of the collective more than the rights of individuals, I'm sure it is. Save it for someone that buys your idea that benevolent dictatorships can remain benevolent for any significant length of time.

Comment: Re:This is not the problem (Score 2) 677

by Curunir_wolf (#48621915) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

But capitalism *is* the problem: current cronyism/corporatism/fascism seems to be an unavoidable outcome of capitalism

Why? Because you say so? Or because you've seen it *sometimes* happen? I can certainly see that it's happened, but claiming it's an "unavoidable outcome" is simply an assertion without support. In fact, it seems to be a false one, since capitalistic markets have existing in many places throughout history without those issues surfacing.

just as tiranny seems to be an unavoidable outcome of comunism.

Communism doesn't necessarily require an oppressive authority, that's just how it's usually implemented. In small groups, it works very well without a powerful leadership involved, but in large groups it becomes difficult to enforce the required contributions because of the complexity of the matrices of so many relationships. Communism should not require exchanging of tokens for resources, but "Communist" governments never seem to be able to eliminate it.

Maybe your "pure" capitalism is free of those problems, but then comunism is also problem-free... in theory.

Nothing is free of problems when it involves humans. Free market capitalism, however, has the best historical track record for improving living conditions. The biggest problem with it in the US today, IMHO, is the ability to buy and sell representatives and administrators. These people are not supposed be commodities, they are supposed to regulate the markets just enough to maintain a competitive environment in which consumers retain power over the producers. I don't think there is an easy answer to that problem, especially with such a large proportion of the population uninvolved and susceptible to marketing.

Comment: Re:This is not the problem (Score 1) 677

by Curunir_wolf (#48618589) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

But for basically all history, wealth distribution has managed to work on a basis of a very short affluent/powerful class with a majority of peasants/slaves/outclassed. Maybe the 20th century has just been an exception along history and we are just returning to the standard trend.

Yes, exactly. People that forget history is doomed to repeat it. Functioning capitalist markets enabled the vibrant middle class, and now that the elites have fiddled with interventionist policies to the point where capitalism has been transformed into some sort of corporatism/fascism hybrid, they've convinced a lot of people that capitalism is the problem and should be done away with. Why they think it will be better than the dark ages before capitalism I don't know.

Comment: Re: This is not the problem (Score 2) 677

by Curunir_wolf (#48618515) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

Why should I? I'm not among the soon-to-be displaced. By birth and by personal merit I belong to the upper tier of society: the one that cannot be replaced and that stands to gain the most from complete automation. We can finally have a true leisure society, for those who have managed to place themselves in the right circles of course. Too bad for you wage slaves.

This is why we need a wealth tax.

Comment: Re:Call me racist and evil and bigoted and everyth (Score 1) 158

by Curunir_wolf (#48614413) Attached to: 9th Circuit Will Revisit "Innocence of Muslims" Takedown Order

And here we have an example of the most classless form of concession: the insult. You could've just said "Ok, I'm wrong; I accept that seven different GOP-led investigations have uncovered nothing untoward"

Haha. Nice try, jackass. Total strawman, because I never made any assertion about anything, other than the WH narrative was false, and known false. Whether that is "untoward" or not is is an exercise left to those who would interpret the facts. The OP's rant was simply a distraction from his unwillingness to acknowledge facts. Your misguided attack is nothing but a way to distract yourself from uncomfortable truths about your own worldview.

Comment: Re:this is ridiculous (Score 3, Informative) 440

by Curunir_wolf (#48609615) Attached to: Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance

I'm all for the forth amendment and all, but having a camera pointed to the outside of his house is no different than having a cop sitting outside the house in a car.

The courts are starting to recognize that using technology in ways like this is different. They've decided that placing a GPS tracker on your car is different than than following you around, and that using infrared scanning of your house is different than a visual inspection, and that searching through your smart phone when they arrest you is different than looking through your wallet.

The reason these things are looked at differently is that courts have recognized that our privacy protections, as conceived in the 18th century, still need to be enforced, and that technology makes violating privacy a lot less costly for law enforcement. That is, there were natural protections due to resource constraints - pervasive surveillance of every citizen was simply not possible. Just because a technology comes along that eliminates those resource requirements does not mean that privacy is no longer protected.

Comment: Re:Call me racist and evil and bigoted and everyth (Score 1) 158

by Curunir_wolf (#48608433) Attached to: 9th Circuit Will Revisit "Innocence of Muslims" Takedown Order

I think you're saying something reasonable here about the warmongers that have been running the country for at least 20 years, and the way they orchestrate a bunch of theatrics to look like opposition when something goes wrong, as if there is anyone in power that's actually opposed to all the killing of brown people and promoting warfare.

Unfortunately, it's really difficult to understand you with Obama's cock so far down your throat.

Comment: Re:Call me racist and evil and bigoted and everyth (Score 1) 158

by Curunir_wolf (#48608409) Attached to: 9th Circuit Will Revisit "Innocence of Muslims" Takedown Order

The only assertion I am making is that "the White House" did NOT tell the truth. That's backed up by the report and the USA Today link. Finding "nothing" doesn't really mean anything, other than we had Mike Morell to take the fall (and get a cushy high-paying gig, spreading propaganda via CBS, plus an "honorary" position on one of the administration's "advisory" boards).

The assertion that "it was bad intelligence" was false (this is, in fact, a lie). Mike Morell testified that he got reports from the CIA describing exactly what had happened, and scratched out everything that indicated Al Queida involvement or an orchestrated terrorist attack. We will never know who was involved in faking up the narrative, because Morell was the fall guy for the whole thing.

Will you acknowledge the facts or continue to defend the corrupt administration as "truthful" and "good" and "above reproach"? Most transparent administration ever?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Working...