Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 506

by stealth_finger (#49146385) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

The trouble with any such reliable way of communicating with the divine is that it would, ultimately, deprive us of our dignity as truly independent beings. Once the creator makes himself be known in unambiguous terms that are obvious to everyone, you are no longer a truly independent entity, now are you? Sure, you still have your free will, but how much is that worth in a world where you know, for sure, that the Devil exists? How much choice does that leave you, to decide between good and evil?

Is that why Jesus walked around performing miracles? And also why there's such heavy consequence for making the 'wrong' choice? Also I'm pretty sure most people would choose good, especially when given all the information to make an informed choice.

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 506

by stealth_finger (#49146205) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

"Hospitals, in western culture, are a result of religious people. Schools, colleges, and universities are the result of religious people. Religious people claim many good and wholesome actions as a result of communicating with their god.

People did that, the fact they were christian is moot. Those things predate christianity by a long stretch. In fact if prayer worked the way the bible says it does (when it says they do as opposed to when it says they don't) none of those would be needed.

Comment: Re:Sounds good (Score 1) 590

by stealth_finger (#49136777) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

I'm also concerned partially because at its root, the problem with broadband in this country is a lack of local choice.

Why would anybody want to invest large bucks in broadband if the FCC can just come around and kick over your business model at any time through regulation?

I believe competition (such as Google Fiber) going up against the phone company and the cable company would help lower prices

Well, so why do the federal government and local government conspire to create huge barriers to entry?

Seems like the system you argue against is alot like what we have here in the UK, a ton of providers with general oversight being treated like a utiity. We can get internet as cheap as £3.75 a month (https://www.plus.net/) to full on fibre/tv/phone packages up to ~£100 for everything. The lions share of deals are also unlimited downloads. The only bad bit is you have to pay line rental regardless of isp at around £15 a month. The whole infrastructure is operated by openreach who only deal with isp's then isp deal with customers. For the most part it works pretty well. A shit load better than what you have.

Comment: Re:Sounds good (Score 1) 590

by stealth_finger (#49136639) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules
It's not like that's a uniform spread. You may have a low overall density but you also have massive chunks of nothing. People in Bumsville Idaho or Shittown Kentucky* might not get great connections but that is no excuse for your cities having just as crummy service. You may have guessed I'm not American so have no first hand experience but from what I gather, even in downtown LA or NY you still get very limited choice, not great service and high costs compared to other countries.


*No offence intended to people from Idaho or Kentucky.

Comment: Re:Artists paid 16 times as much for Spotify than (Score 1) 303

by stealth_finger (#49118433) Attached to: Pandora Pays Artists $0.001 Per Stream, Thinks This Is "Very Fair"
I also got really bored of music about 5+ years ago. I still have and listen to all the music I bought before that but a switched seemed to flip in my head one day and said, right you've got enough. I've bought maybe 3 albums since and only downloaded stuff I own because it was easier than digging out the cd to digitize. Never bothered with spotify et al. I do occasionally go on internet radio sites and try to find the most shouty alex jones type ranting about stuff I can but they're few and far between nowadays. There used to be station out of New York called Angry Radio which was great but they also just stopped one day.

Comment: Re:Artists paid 16 times as much for Spotify than (Score 1) 303

by stealth_finger (#49118387) Attached to: Pandora Pays Artists $0.001 Per Stream, Thinks This Is "Very Fair"

It isn't that people are set on getting "free shit"

Yes it fucking is. I've been seeing these stupid arguments on Slashdot and other "tech" blogs for the better part of two decades, and every time, every single fucking time, it is obvious that the detractors of intellectual property, copyrights, and patents, and the like flat-out feel entitled to the fruits of others' labor without compensation. That's all it's ever about. From the DVD deCSS decryption stuff to the Pirate Bay to the rates of pay for streaming, it has always and ever shall be about the Free Shit (free as in beer, yuk yuk). No matter how much a bunch of basement-dwelling nerds try to dress it up in lofty principles, when it comes down to it they simply want access to every single thing anyone has ever created, at the push of a button, for zero money. That's it. These conversations would be a lot shorter if at least a few people would come clean and just acknowledge it once in a while.

Maybe that might be the kids mentality but for most of the people I know that download stuff it's because they're unable to buy what they want. CD/DVDs out of print. Shows locked to Netflix/hulu/streaming site x in the us only, DRM, people who travel, stuff not available in your region etc etc. So it's on a distribution method (the internet) that has no reason we can't get the stuff other than they won't let us so no wonder people say well it's available for free right there so fuck you. Most people who can afford to buy what they want would if they could. Kids cant buy crap anyway that's why they gorge when they can get it for free, but make what we want easy to buy and we'll certainly fucking buy it.

Comment: Re:Artists paid 16 times as much for Spotify than (Score 1) 303

by stealth_finger (#49118315) Attached to: Pandora Pays Artists $0.001 Per Stream, Thinks This Is "Very Fair"

Fuck those money-grubbing artists. Tell them to vote for a basic income, funded the same way the private sector funds itself, through money creation. Then let ppl make music because they love it, not to get paid.

Fuck those money grubbing labels. They're the ones that rape every facet of the industry and keep all the riches for themselves. Support the artists, fuck the labels.

"An entire fraternity of strapping Wall-Street-bound youth. Hell - this is going to be a blood bath!" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...