Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:His mistake was posting he had made them... (Score 1) 329

by Karmashock (#48223979) Attached to: 3D-Printed Gun Earns Man Two Years In Japanese Prison

Refusing to consider hypotheticals renders any conceptual discussion beyond your ability to analyze. You cannot talk about WHY things are the way they are if you cannot consider hypotheticals.

This is why politicians hate hypothetical questions because the actually address the consequences of their policies. They only want to talk about what is and what was. Never mind they're changing legislation all the time that will effect what will be. But if you talk about that before what will be "is" they refuse to talk about it until it "is".

The conflict is that you can't rationally project into the future. under that logic. And so you sacrifice any ability to tell me WHY things are they way they are or what things will be like in the future because YOU refuse to consider hypotheticals.

Its a dumb defense. Consider hypotheticals or you can't participate rationally in any discussion of this nature.

Comment: Re:Of course it is related to wages... (Score 1) 470

It isn't in the interest of the rich for the economy to crash. If they have all the money then you can't buy anything and the economy crashes.

It isn't in their interest for that to happen.

It works out best for everyone if everyone does well and at the same time... the rich do a bit better.

Violent revolution and slaughter isn't a natural consequence of economic change.

Consider that when we went into the industrial revolution millions of people that worked on farms lost their jobs. What did they do? They went to work in factories where they were generally better paid then they were on the farms and though there was some privation everything ultimately worked out better for everyone.

Before the industrial revolution, about 60-80 percent of the work force worked on a farm. Think about that. Today, in the US... that number is less then 3 percent. Think about that.

Which means in many existing industries you could see similar job loss. But at the same time, something else should open up. Likely in some sort of information segment of the economy. The jobs will be different.

And this will continue until robots are better at doing everything and anything then a human being.

What happens after that is anyone's guess. But until then I wouldn't worry too much about it. Our society in general will be enriched by automation enormously. And that wealth will be made available to the people as it always has in the past. Will the rich live better then you? Yep. But you'll live better then you're living now. So why complain?

Comment: Not sure what is going on here... but... (Score 0) 401

by Karmashock (#48220939) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips

If you steal my IP... and the government doesn't do their job and nail your butt to the wall... then I don't feel so bad about doing something nasty that screws up whomever is profiting from ripping me off.

I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion. But consider that we give the government a monopoly on violence in return for it agreeing to maintain justice and order. If it fails in either of those tasks then the contract is broken. Consider the wild west... government was not able to provide either justice or order. So you occasionally had to sort things out on your own when someone stole from you or threatened your life.

Likewise, a lot of this digital stuff is just beyond the government's ability or will to correct. So be it... wild west time. What people do is on their own conscience. You do it and own it.

Comment: Of course it is related to wages... (Score 1) 470

One of the big reasons we haven't gone in for automation in much bigger way in the US is the high availability of illegal labor in the US. They're cheaper then robots in many cases at least with current technology... and a good deal more reliable and more capable.

Take the illegal labor out of the labor force and we would have heavily automated a decade ago at least.

So is the current drive for automation somewhat linked to the minimum wage hikes? Absolutely. The reality is that many jobs aren't worth more then people are being paid for them. Some of them are worth a good deal less but they simply must be done and so some people are over paid for them.

Automation is inevdiable and ultimately good for the economy. It will create new jobs for people that repair, manage, install, and build automation systems. It will also increase revenue dollars per capital dollars invested. And that wealth will open up money for new jobs.

Many people fear some dystopia where robots do everything and no one can get a job. But the reality is that money only has value in that you can buy things with it.

Which means those with money will need to spend it for it to have value. And that means if they get anything from people consenting to do what they want... people will have jobs.

Comment: Re: New York (Score 1) 303

by Karmashock (#48220765) Attached to: NY Doctor Recently Back From West Africa Tests Positive For Ebola

They make use of the cell's own metabolic processes to reproduce which is their own bizarre form of eating. The cell is consumed in the process even if it consumes itself. Are they alive when they're outside an infected cell? Perhaps not... but then how alive is a frozen ice fish? When they enter a cell and start rewriting its DNA... it hard to not see the the will of the organism.

Beyond that, they do evolve.

I think it is problematic to classify strange forms of life as not being alive at all. Viruses are very different from all other known forms of life. But I think that is because they have everything extraneous stripped away from them.

Comment: Re: New York (Score 4, Informative) 303

by Karmashock (#48219245) Attached to: NY Doctor Recently Back From West Africa Tests Positive For Ebola

You can find more about what Nigeria has done here:

Nothing they did was especially innovative. Their response was textbook. You quarantine anyone infected, you question anyone infected about everyone they've come in contact with, you investigate all of those people, and you do not take the virus lightly.

None of this is new. It is basic.

The people saying we can't have screening or quarantine procedures for political reasons don't seem to grasp that viruses don't care about your politics. It is like when Achilles says to Hector "there are no pacts between lions and men"...

The virus will show no pity, no hesitation, and no remorse. It exists to eat and spread.

Just as we have procedures for dealing with forest fires or other natural phenomenon. You don't let politics dictate how you deal with them. There is a correct way and an incorrect way. If you choose the incorrect path because it is politically more correct, then that natural phenomenon will exploit your arrogance and do what it does.

Again, I'm not worried about an outbreak in the US. I am however concerned about the glaring and obvious incompetence of the government. I am routinely shocked by how stupid they are on so many issues.

Comment: I turn the alerts off. (Score 1) 167

I don't need the computer to tell me when a big disk nearly full. That would be something I was aware of for some time.

In an enterprise setting where there could be many disks... one would assume the sysadmin has set reasonable alert levels rather then leaving everything on default.

So... I guess this is relevant to non-power users in residential contexts? But then how is a non power user filling a terrabyte harddrive? I mean... seriously.

Comment: Re: New York (Score 4, Insightful) 303

by Karmashock (#48218583) Attached to: NY Doctor Recently Back From West Africa Tests Positive For Ebola

They were following CDC guidelines which apparently were contradictory and incomplete.

Basically what everyone is realizing is that the CDC is fucking clueless and everyone has to just use their own best judgement on the matter.

Beyond which... basic quarantine procedures would deal with this problem.

Nigeria is doing that and they're basically free from infection despite being right next to effected countries.

The US used to have such policies in the old days. Ellis Island had extensive quarantine facilities for example.

In this case we have a full blown Ebola outbreak and the fucking retarded administration wants to keep open transport because they're afraid it would look like discrimination. Let me be clear, if the damn outbreak were in the middle of Sweden, I'd still want quarantine procedures. This has nothing at all to do with race but rather everything to do with a very scary virus that isn't playing around.

Now am I actually worried about a mass outbreak in the US? No. I find that unlikely. However, this virus has a 50-70% mortality rate and there is no vaccine.

This is not something you take lightly. You pay this sort of virus the respect it deserves and enact BASIC quarantine procedures. Rudimentary.

Nothing fancy. You come back from one of these countries, your passport gets checked, they see the stamp, they have a blood sample taken or whatever is needed. Then depending on the relevance, you might need to wait for that to come back clean.

Sound inconvenient? It is a fucking plague. Tough shit.

Comment: Re:His mistake was posting he had made them... (Score 1) 329

by Karmashock (#48217727) Attached to: 3D-Printed Gun Earns Man Two Years In Japanese Prison

People were talking about organized crime in japan. So... do you think organized crime in japan has any trouble getting all the guns they "WANT"... the answer is obviously. They smuggle more then that all the time.

Regardless... on the issue printed weapons... we can already pump out plastic weapons from printers that print plastic.

What happens when the public has printers that can print metal?

The metal printers can already print production grade weapons. One of the printing companies printed a 1911 pistol.

Now you can control that to some extent by controlling the sale of ammunition. But it really depends on what you're printing.

I would print a shotgun. Mostly because the ammo is really easy to make yourself.

Here is the thing. You can't stop a psychopath by controlling weapons. You can change the way that organized crime deals with people. But a mass killer is going to find a way. Keep in mind you can make a powerful bomb with fertilizer. Keep in mind you can make poison gas with cleaning supplies.

At a certain point, there is substitute for simply trusting people. And that means that if you really want to control this issue you need to know who is crazy and who is not.

Comment: Nothing is good enough for you people (Score 1) 288

by Karmashock (#48210131) Attached to: Will Fiber-To-the-Home Create a New Digital Divide?

Any nice thing happens and some asshat comes along to say "but we won't all have it at the same time instantly!"... Seriously?

Can you just be happy someone has something nice? And eventually it will get around to everyone. It is better that someone has something then that no one has it. This envy based value system is really getting old.

Comment: Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score 1) 396

by Karmashock (#48205525) Attached to: Speed Cameras In Chicago Earn $50M Less Than Expected

As to facing your accuser... lets say I own a shop and it has a camera in it... and someone breaks into my shop and use the video from the camera to convict them.

The video is evidence... your accuser is the government.

As to discretion, i have a problem with this as well because it means the police officer can decide what is illegal or not on a case by case basis. That is not his right. The legislature has the right to decide what is and is not legal. The courts have the duty to decide who is actually guilty. And the executive's job is merely to write the tickets.

Discretion on balance creates problems because it papers over problems with bad laws. Congress or city councils would be pressured to fix bad laws if those laws were actually applied as written.

Making matters worse, police sometimes apply the letter of the law and sometimes not. They are held to no standard as to when they do or do not do this. They can choose on a whim what to do. And that is a kind of tyranny.

Do I prefer police officers? yes. Because they're expensive and can't be everywhere. So they are inefficient for many kinds of enforcement. I like that as a check against tyranny.

If the cameras were only used properly, I wouldn't have a problem with them.

I think one of the bigger issues with traffic citations is that they are a revenue stream for cities. They shouldn't be. An alternative should be offered instead of giving the city money. Community service or something. Most people will just pay the money. But if the city gets silly with the fees, then you can just do some community service for 10 hours or something and be done with it.

That would lower the incentive for the government to effectively raise taxes by increasing enforcement for petty traffic violations.

Comment: Re:I see what they wanted to do here... (Score 1) 324

by Karmashock (#48204483) Attached to: Hungary To Tax Internet Traffic

I understand the purpose.

However, in a democracy where everyone can vote... you run into problems when taxation does not equal representation.

By having different tax rates for people that are wealthier... while at the same time not increasing their influence over government relatively... you create a situation where one faction can vote themselves something at someone else's expense and the system is unable to balance the interests.

That is the problem with progressive taxes. They do not come with corresponding influence for those that pay more.

If you are prepared to reduce the influence of those that pay less or increase the influence of those that pay more... then go for it. Otherwise, progressive taxes should be avoided.

Further note that I am referring to tax RATES. If I make a million dollars and I pay a rate of 10 percent then I'm going to pay a lot more money then someone that makes 1000 dollars and also pays 10 percent. However, note that the rates are the same. That is fine. The problem comes about when the guy making a million pays a rate of 70 percent and the guy making a 1000 pays a rate of negative 900 percent. And yet they both have the same influence over the political process when they go to the ballot box.

Now you might say the rich man might get more influence buy donating to politicians. This is true. However that comes as an expense ON TOP of his taxes. He doesn't just get that. He has to pay even more money just to get the influence he should have gotten simply by paying those progressive taxes.

Now look, I don't want rich people to have that much influence. I like the idea of one person one vote.

But the price of that is that we all have to pay the same rate. Another option might be limiting what people on subsidies can vote on. I know... it sounds terrible but it might be fair. If society is basically feeding you, housing you, etc... then do you have a right to tell the rest of society how it must do it? I don't see that you do. At that point you are a dependent of the state not unlike being a child taken care of by a parent. And children don't get to vote.

Comment: I see what they wanted to do here... (Score 1) 324

by Karmashock (#48203679) Attached to: Hungary To Tax Internet Traffic

They did it wrong clearly.

The idea is that a certain amount of the economy is flowing through the internet and the government feels it has a right a fraction of that just as they claim from everything.

I can get that far.

Then I get what they did by charging by bandwidth. This is an attempt to make the tax progressive so that small users pay very little and big users pay a lot. I get that too.

The problem with this idea is that the amount of traffic is accelerating and the tax isn't reasonable if everyone's internet speed goes up by a factor of ten or something.

A more reasonable tax would be a per user tax on the ISPs. I'm quite sure they already have those... so... increase them I guess if they want more. That gets us to a tax that should bring in decent revenue without limiting people to lower bandwidth.

How to make that progressive?... I guess you could say anyone with low income could file for relief from that tax... or you could just have bandwidth tiers. Every company has tiers... this is the 3mb tier, this is the 7 mb tier... all the way up to 200 mb or something. Have the tax associated with given tiers be reset yearly or something so it can keep pace.

That or just dont' have a progressive tax... progressive taxes are stupid.

I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky