Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:You think Greeks want MORE electronic money? (Score 2) 358 358

I think his point was that you'd have physical access to it, yknow, to buy physical bread and milk.

Only if you kept it in a big pile in your basement, which would have its own set of security and logistical problems.

If on the other hand you keep you gold/silver in the vault of a bank that is now shut down for the week then you're right back to where you are now.

Comment: Re: But Macs "just work", right? (Score 3, Funny) 248 248

I'm willing to accept a garden with walls if it means I don't have to constantly worry about what unpatched vulnerability is ripe for exploitation on my phone.

You mean like that vulnerability where I can send you a text message and cause your phone to crash? ;-)

Comment: Re:This is not a matter of neutrality (Score 3, Interesting) 438 438

And it would not matter IF NOT FOR GOVERNMENT REGULATION...because I would have several, if not dozens of competitors to choose amongst.

Tell me, what color is the sky where you live?

No matter what the government does no one is going to have dozens of competitors to chose from because running wires to peoples houses is expensive and it would not be cost effective to do so for a chance at 1/24th of the market (and that's assuming that it were even practical to dig up the streets every 5 minutes to run new cables).

Not to mention that without evil GOVERNMENT REGULATION to force right-of-way land usage it would be almost impossible for anyone to build a comprehensive network because one old coot in the wrong location that refuses to let you run cables over his land could cut off whole segments of the population.

Comment: Re:Have they not heard (Score 1) 358 358

[Have they not heard ] of AdBlock?

Yes we have.

Why would anyone pay for this?

Because some people appreciate the value that YouTube and (some of) the content creators that post there provide and would like a safe and convenient way to kick back a few bucks to ensure that everyone involved is able to pay their rent.

Comment: Re:Like everything else M$... (Score 1) 208 208

Getting people who know what they are talking about to agree how good a piece of art is usually works best.

And how do we decide which people do and don't "know what they're talking about"? At best that's a circular definition. The criteria you've proposed for judging the quality of art is that some group of people have judged it to be good.

Comment: Re:Like everything else M$... (Score 1) 208 208

Sure, but there has to be a level of complexity to it, otherwise it evokes no feeling.

So again, how much complexity is required? By what metric are you judging Justin Bieber's work to be insufficiently complex? Does it not have enough different notes in it or something? If the evocation of feeling is the important part then that's a subjective reaction on the part of the audience not an objective measurement criteria.

Impact anyone. Whether it's a positive or negative impact doesn't matter. Poor art won't have any impact and will be easily forgotten.

Justin Bieber seems to have had a strong negative impact on you and a strong positive impact on lots of other people (judging by the level of screaming at least).

Exactly. If it's so worthless as to be quickly forgotten, then it's crap.

I think you have your cause and effect backwards here. Great art is not great because it's remembered, it's remembered because it's great.

It's good that you admit it. Perhaps one day you'll acquire a sense of taste.

You're making a lot of snide comments about my personal preferences for someone that knows absolutely nothing about them.

Comment: Re:Like everything else M$... (Score 1) 208 208


So simple elegant things can't be art? How complex does it need to be before it counts? Is more complexity always better or is there a diminishing return?


Let's see...refinement, noun: "cultured elegance in behavior or manner.". Hmmm....elegance, noun: "the quality of being pleasingly ingenious and simple ". So art must embody complexity and ingenious simplicity. Gotcha. Can't see any issues so far.


Impact on who? How is impact measured? Sounds to me like impact is a function of entirely subjective reactions of the audience.

staying power

So something that is obscure and thus quickly forgotten about can't be art because it has no staying power?

The only reason Bieber is more popular is because most people are uncultured mooks and you appear to be one of them.

Perhaps. Or perhaps I just understand the difference between a subjective opinion and an objective fact and I'm not arrogant enough to assume that my opinions are somehow more worthy than anyone else's. But no, I'm sure you're right. It's probably the mook thing.

Comment: Re:Morale of the Story (Score 1) 217 217

It's a zero-loss game for creators and a zero-profit game for backers.

I don't think it's entirely zero-profit for backers. If the project succeeds then I get a thing that I wanted that might not otherwise have been created. That's a benefit for me.

Comment: Re:#1 slashdot article submitters (Score 1) 257 257

Because there is such a thing as reputation, and concealed carry.

Reputation only works as a behavior modifier if the people I have to do business with in some way give a crap about the people I'm screwing over. And concealed carry only works if your gun is bigger than mine.

Also, I didn't say get rid of governments, I said get them out of the markets. The only possible purpose of a government is to reduce aggression (ie murder, assault, theft, and their derivatives like rape and fraud).

You didn't say get rid of them but you did say they were "the root of the problems we have in the marketplace", which I took to mean you thought there would be no problems in the marketplace if we got rid of the government. IMHO you can't have a functioning marketplace without things like protection of property rights, protection against fraud and enforcement of contracts, and I've yet to hear of a credible proposal for how we maintain those things without some form of government.

Comment: Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 631 631

The scarcity of a natural resource does not cause a monopoly to naturally occur.

It's certainly not guaranteed to to happen but are seriously suggesting that it's impossible for it to happen?

The scarcity of radio spectrum would not result in a single radio broadcast corporation monopolizing the spectrum.

What are you basing that assertion on?

Now, if it wasn't regulated, there would be some chaos - but the steady state equilibrium result may not be all that bad.

Who's to say the "steady state equilibrium" wouldn't be the one guy with the most powerful transmitter drowning out every other signal?

The fact that many are unhappy with cable companies and desire more competition shows that granting them government monopolies has downsides. Do you think the US would be better off if Google Fiber efforts were banned because "natural monopoly" and "duplication" and it might not be cost effective?

Don't get me wrong. I am in no way saying that government granted monopolies are good or desirable. I was merely trying to point out it was possible for monopolies to form without a specific government mandate.

Comment: Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 631 631

Physics doesn't enforce monopolies

Depends what you mean by enforce I guess. eg there is a limited radio broadcast spectrum. That's not government enforced, that just physics. If everyone just broadcast indiscriminately on whatever spectrum they felt like signal interference would render it useless.

Take cable - natural monopoly? Except it relies on government enforcement to create the actual monopoly.

Not really. Even if you removed all government regulation from building cable networks (which would in practice be next to impossible to do, but for the sake of argument) you'd still never see 27 different cable providers running wires into your house because it's simply not cost effective to duplicate that infrastructure. You'd end up fragmenting the market to the point where it's impossible to recover the capital costs of building the network. You may not see a strict monopoly with only one player (although you might), but the natural barriers to entry can be sufficient that normal "free market" solutions don't necessarily apply.

Comment: Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 631 631

Currently these places are getting internet piggybacked on utility infrastructure. The costs are spread over the entire service area and traditionally, access to that service area was limited in exchange for servicing areas not profitable to serve.

Sure, but what I'm still not getting is how net neutrality rules change any of that?

[The unprofitable areas] will have to bear the costs of their connections when 5 different companies saturate the apartment complex

How does net neutrality magically give us 5 companies serving the profitable market when we've never had that before?

UNIX enhancements aren't.