Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Protect us against cyber-threats? (Score 5, Insightful) 47

You're a racist cunt. People are people, and want/need basically the same things - if you don't push them into corners and poke at them with sticks.

The thugs? Products of our selective, post-colonial domination. Nobody rallies round a bully, when they have nothing much to fear.

Comment: Re:Protect us against cyber-threats? (Score 1) 47


Exactly. "What you mean 'We', White Man?"

Why not disband the NSA and instead spend the hundreds of billions of dollars that fascist cess-pit drinks off of the public teat - instead spending a decent fraction on making FRIENDS, not ENEMIES? There are a lot of schools, hospitals and high-school diplomas that could be bought, all round-the-world. You wouldn't have a popular resistance to American influence in the world, were that influence actually benign.

Comment: Re:So, a design failure then. (Score 1) 134

by hey! (#47921919) Attached to: Developing the First Law of Robotics

It depends on your design goals.

In Asimov's story universe, the Three Laws are so deeply embedded in robotics technology they can't be circumvented by subsequent designers -- not without throwing out all subsequent robotics technology developments and starting over again from scratch. That's one heck of a tall order. Complaining about a corner case in which the system doesn't work as you'd like after they achieved that seems like nitpicking.

We do know that *more* sophisticated robots can designed make more subtle ethical systems -- which is another sign of a robust fundamental design. The simplistic ethics is what subsequent designers get when they get "for free" when they use an off-the-shelf positronic brain to control a welding robot or bread-slicing machine.

Think of the basic positronic brain design as a design framework. One of the hallmarks of a robust framework is that easy things are easy and hard things are possible. By simply using the positronic framework the designers of the bread slicing machine don't have to figure out all the ways the machine might slice a person's fingers off. The framework takes care of that for them.

Comment: Re:The protruding lens was a mistake (Score 1) 274

by hey! (#47921441) Attached to: Apple Edits iPhone 6's Protruding Camera Out of Official Photos

I don't think you've really grasped Apple's design sensibility. Job one for the designers is to deliver a product that consumers want but can't get anywhere else.

The "camera bulge" may be a huge blunder, or it may be just a tempest in a teapot. The real test will be the user's reactions when they hold the device in their hand, or see it in another user's hand. If the reaction is "I want it", the designers have done their job. If it's "Holy cow, look at that camera bulge," then it's a screw-up.

The thinness thing hasn't been about practicality for a long, long time; certainly not since smartphones got thinner than 12mm or so. They always been practical things the could have given us other than thinness, but what they want you to do is pick up the phone and say, "Look how thin the made this!" The marketing value of that is that it signals that you've got the latest and greatest device. There's a limit of course, and maybe we're at it now. Otherwise we'll be carrying devices in ten years that look like big razor blades.

At some point in your life you'll probably have seen so many latest and greatest things that having the latest and greatest isn't important to you any longer. That's when know you've aged out of the demographic designers care about.

Comment: Re:WAAAHHHH!!! (Score 1) 157

by Dogtanian (#47919135) Attached to: Quickflix Wants Netflix To Drop Australian VPN Users

Sounds like a case of tall poppy envy to me.

Sounds like a badly mixed metaphor to me- tall poppy syndrome- which I assume is what you had in mind- tends to have a more specific use referring to people attacked for their achievements or prominence by their peers within a particular society, and I'm not sure this is a good example of that.

Comment: Re:Urban Fetch (Score 1) 138

by omfgnosis (#47917393) Attached to: Uber CEO: We'll Run Your Errands

Well, you fell to their propaganda.

Don't be a prick. My point began with "there's a ton wrong with Uber", I am not a fanboy. Instead of responding with this internethipster you don't KNOW what a service IS? bullshit, just clarify the point (if it was even yours in the first place; if it wasn't, you're broadening the discussion and doing it in a really dickish way). It would make a discussion, with understanding and possibly even learning, much more achievable.

Yes, ultimately the fundamental problem with Uber is that they try to appear like a taxi service to end-users while not entirely following all of the rules of a taxi service. It's the source of basically everything else wrong with the company. But that does not mean that the taxi-like portion is not a service, nor that those prices are not obviously what a (would-be) customer thinks of when presented with the claim "Uber charges more money for the same service". The reality is that they are a taxi service, whatever they like to claim, and that is why I presented the comparison to other taxi services. It turns out that dispatch is a primary function of a taxi service.

Uber drivers get less money than normal taxi drivers, that's why you pay less.

Every former cab driver I've met who drives Uber (and they are many) says the opposite. Again, this might be unique to Seattle, following from an artificial limit on taxi licenses that may also be unique to Seattle, I don't know. I honestly have not taken the time to know, because a competition between luxury transportation providers is hardly the most important issue to me in terms of justice.

Comment: companies pay workers to develop software (Score 4, Insightful) 49

by Mr. Slippery (#47916661) Attached to: Industry-Based ToDo Alliance Wants To Guide FOSS Development

"It's not enough getting a free ride off of developers building great software, we want to shove our roadmap down their throats and get them to work harder for us â" without having to pay for it, of course."

Looks more like "We want to figure out how best to coordinate and share that portion of the work that the people whom we pay to develop software for us, do on free software." (Though they're not using that dangerous word "free", of course.)

"Free" or "open source" doesn't mean no one is getting paid to develop it.

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.