Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:the endgame is ironic here (Score 1) 287

by Curunir_wolf (#49556293) Attached to: Robot Workers' Real Draw: Reducing Dependence on Human Workers

Agreed - there is an appropriate amount of regulation. That amount is neither zero, nor infinite regulation. But anyone that thinks that businesses would just do the right thing if only they were free to do whatever they want hasn't read their history.

History shows that businesses only need to look after their own self-interest. With all players acting the same way, there are, in fact, many checks built-in to a free market system. Intervention is only needed for things like, businesses that attempt to cut corners in dangerous ways by, for instance, using melamine-contaminated fillers for pet and baby food, or dumping toxic waste into the rivers or air.

The worst of monopolistic abuses, regulatory capture, and cronyism are actually side-effects of a run-away regulatory bureaucracy.

Comment: Re:the endgame is ironic here (Score 1) 287

by Curunir_wolf (#49554541) Attached to: Robot Workers' Real Draw: Reducing Dependence on Human Workers

However, the assertion that taking away the regulation will have better results than fixing the regulation is based on a fiction

Same old fallacy. Supporters of unlimited central government always try to claim that the only choice is all the regulation or none at all. Of course there is also such a thing as too much regulation, which causes more problems than it solves. So of course if a regulation isn't working, you just need a new regulation, and a new one to fix that, and a new one to fix that, until there are so many it becomes an albatross.

Anyone that thinks there are no regulations that need to be removed in the US has NOT been reading the Federal Register every quarter.

Comment: Re:First post... (Score 1) 31

by jellomizer (#49550241) Attached to: Patents Show Google Fi Was Envisioned Before the iPhone Was Released

Before the iPhone we were not primitives. They were smart phones years before the iPhone was released. The big players was Blackberry and a slew of windows mobile phones, and Palm. They had a keyboard you could browse the web you could even get apps, and watch videos. Android OS was in development. But the idea of smart phones were all centered around a full keyboard and some sort of pointing device. The key features where there. So it would make sense for Google to look for ways to improve bandwidth without the iPhone designed phone.

However after the iPhone was released it put the smart phone market in shock. It seemed that a larger screen was preferable, people picked up in using gestures quickly, and was willing to sacrifice a physical keyboard for it. This made all the other companies future plans obsolete thus giving Apple a two year lead.

But saying before the iPhone we wouldn't imagine trying to get faster mobile data is naive.

Comment: Re:Fairly easy way to protect data. (Score 1) 75

What are you a yuppie from the 1980s or something!
For most cases unless the person was being malicious these problems happen due to a failure of the whole system not just one person.
The best of us probably had made a mistake or at lest was really close to one.
Human error is part of the game. If there is a problem you can act like adults and fix it, or act like kids and try to point to the person who can point any further.

Comment: Re:Fairly easy way to protect data. (Score 2) 75

All sounds good however... For a large organization such rules become impractical. To get full security there will be so much administrative overhead of approving access to a given area for so much time and back, that if you played by the rules you wouldn't get your job done timely. So you end up with "black market" IT where people will store backups of the data in say an access or excel files, and keep them hidden from the official system. Not because they have nefarious use of them, but because they will need to get their job done, and the official secure way is too impractical.

So let's say you were tasked to figure out if it was worth it it accept American Express, as AE charges a lot for its transaction. So you may need to figure out some numbers.
%of customers with AE
Average spending with AE
Average spending in total
Standard dev of spending with AE
Standard dev of spending total

Now because someone dropped the ball you will need this data quickly.
Putting a request to get this data may take days.

Comment: Re:"Full responsibilty?" (Score 1) 331

by ToasterMonkey (#49543053) Attached to: Drone Killed Hostages From U.S. and Italy, Drawing Obama Apology

And Congress passed a law saying that they aren't needed for military action.

This is exactly my point. They passed a law which is in violation of the Constitution. Congress can't just pass a law making it illegal to vote if you are under the age of 30. They can't just pass a law to make Presbyterianism the official state religion. These things would require an amendment to the Constitution. How is this different?

The Constitution is not even remotely clear on what is required for military action, but go ahead and quote some of it here if you find anything.
Today I learned why we don't have a Navy National Guard, something about the states not keeping Ships of War. That's also the only place I see "engaging in war". If the authors wanted to be more clear about article I and II powers they certainly could have.

It says the President is Commander in Chief, and it says Congress can declare War. There is shit else in-between those two powers. If Congress wants to pass an act authorizing the president to do something he could arguably already do with his powers, it just removes the need to argue.

I'm curious how would you label blockading a port, if a nation invites us to do it? When does that action become engaging in war, pretending that text was even in articles I or II. If they invite us over to drop bombs on some people, how is that different?

What ARE the limits of article II powers?

Comment: Re:Good (Score 4, Insightful) 99

by jellomizer (#49540199) Attached to: Bloomberg Report Suggests Comcast & Time Warner Merger Dead

The issue with the price, is your are paying for the Service and the Infrastructure.
I much rather have two bills.
One for the infrastructure, and one for the Service.
Much like in the old dialup days. We paid for the Phone Line, then we paid for the ISP.
We may have had limited options for the infrastructure, but you could choose ISP.

The problem is that We have both bundled together.

Fear is the greatest salesman. -- Robert Klein

Working...