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


Forgot your password?

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:What could possibly go wrong? (Score 2) 127

by Karmashock (#49160803) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links

The simple fact that you see partisan advantage proves you agree it will be exploited. You just think it will be exploited to help you rather than hurt you.

The funny thing you're not getting is that google itself is far from indispensible. There are lots of other search engines and most of them are comparable in quality.

At best... assuming you're right... what would happen is that people that thought more like you would be even further echo chambered then you already are... protected from alternative view points and increasingly controlled by your ruling opinion makers... while the internet culture further fragments.

You're hardly going to win against your political rivals because they'll just use Bing or something. All that will happen is that YOU are aware of less. Will your opinions change? You weren't moved by sites that came up that you felt were pushing disinformation in the first place. No one really is at this point. We can smell our own and we treat with skepticism anyone outside our tribe.

You might argue that this would help you fight for the allegiance of the moderates and the middle. And you might have something there. But things are so social networked at this point that you'll have a hard time playing gatekeeper with any proficiency.

In any case... your opinion has merely validated my initial statement.

Comment: What could possibly go wrong? (Score 3, Insightful) 127

by Karmashock (#49160555) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links

While in theory the idea is great, the problem is that one person's facts are another person's propaganda.

Look at the crap storms on wikipedia for example with all sorts of various groups all fighting over who gets to edit some page. Can you honestly say that always ends with the people standing up for truth winning? I can think of a few situations where it was controversial and the people that were pushing bs just happened to win or nearly as bad force moderators to lock the listing in a pre crisis state. Thus basically white washing the whole incident out of existence.

Again, I think it is a nice idea in theory, in practice I'm sure assholes and trolls are going to fuck it up.

Comment: Re: Why only those two states? (Score 1) 193

Your argument now is that google and centurylink are lying and that the only reason we have duopolies is because of innate business and logistical concerns.

That is idiotic. And I'm frankly not interested in rhetorically punching your argument in the face until the greasy blob that was your credibility either submits or dies.

So... Good day to you... you get to believe what ever you like. I really don't care.

Comment: Re:AI is a bit of a stretch (Score 1) 40

As to something that shifts between various preprogrammed responses and something that invents them on the fly or learns new strategies entirely on its own. Iâ(TM)d argue that the former already exists and those are the ones that are so easy to beat.

A big difference between chess and an RTS is that there are so many more moves to make. In chess you get ONE move per turn and the amount you can move and in which directions is highly finite. In an RTS game imagine a chess board a billion times larger, with people able to move as many pieces as they want every turn. That is, in an RTS game EVERY piece can move every turn. And whether you even move anything in a turn or not is entirely up to you. In chess you MUST move something every turn. In an RTS game you donâ(TM)t have to do anything. You can just sit there and space out until you lose. And of course in RTS games

Defeating RTS AIs in games is largely a matter of understanding what theyâ(TM)re going to do at given times and just being rock to their scissors⦠over and over again. In starcraft, I know when the AI is going to expand to a new resource location. I know what types of armies it likes to build. I know it is probably just going to attack me head on.

So there are different ways to deal with that. I personally like to fortify so that my base is really hard to attack with anything short of overwhelming numbers. And rather than having a lethal âoedeathballâ which is what they call a big mass of units that you just march through everything to win. I prefer to have very mobile forces that are only good at killing something specific that I want to kill. So Iâ(TM)ll probably distract their forces in the middle with something stupid, and then sneak behind their lines to destroy resource acquisition or unit production facilities. Then the attrition of their death ball in the middle has meaning because they cannot replace lost units in a timely manner. They lack either the resources or the production facilities to do it.

Then I start dominating the map once they start having supply issues. And because I like it⦠I tend to hold off on killing them until I have top tier units that I can just humiliate the remaining forces with⦠and then I get bored and stop playing the AI.

A truer AI that makes up its own strategies on the fly, learns from mistakes, or adapts to my strategies in anything but a formulaic fashion has never been seen in consumer RTS games. Or if it has, Iâ(TM)ve never even heard of it.

As to RTS games where they build a second base⦠you see that in starcraft and in the newer CnC games. If you bomb out their primary but leave their expansion alone⦠theyâ(TM)ll usually rebuild their forces there if they can. Though even for a good human player, losing your primary base is generally game over.

As to winning after youâ(TM)ve survived the Rush, you should play that AI a bit more then. You just need to know what it will do after it does that initial rush. I like to set up a kill zone that the AI will mindlessly suicide all its units into. You can put a strong defensive structure RIGHT next to an enemy base and theyâ(TM)ll often just suicide their units into in penny packets. That bleeds their forces on an ongoing basis and keeps them weak and preoccupied. Then you can do whatever you want on the map. As to an AI surviving map starvation⦠the hardest AIs tend to cheat. So they have their own revenue streams. Starcraft is the best example of this⦠you set the AI to hardest and they get a trickle of resources from nowhere that they can use to buy stuff even if theyâ(TM)ve had no access to other resources for a long time. Again, those are the only AIs that are actually hard and theyâ(TM)re not any more clever than the stupid ones⦠theyâ(TM)re just cheating.

As to them never being unconventional, that is because theyâ(TM)re not really AIs⦠theyâ(TM)re just complex flow charts. It is all âoeIF THENâ statements. If this happened, then do this. If that happened, then do that. Etc. And so theyâ(TM)re pretty dumb. All you have to do is come at them north by north west and they get confused and die.

Comment: Re:Ah, the standard Southern argument. (Score 1) 299

If they don't need monopoly power then why do they seek it so fervently?

You don't hear unions competing with each other. They either have informal or formal non-competition agreements which in industry is generally considered illegal... or they have actual monopolies where it is literally impossible to get labor in a given part of the country in a given industry without going through a specific union organization to negotiate the terms and buy that labor.

And you know what... that's fucked. What protection do I have as a company against the price you offer for labor being unreasonable? Because if you have a monopoly, my options are to pay the extortionate fee or pound sand. And if a union does that... they deserve to be outsourced/off shored/whatever.

If the unions operated in a more competitive environment where anyone could walk off the street and take a job they would otherwise be offering THEN I'd feel better about their prices. If the price of labor is high because no one will work for less then that, then that is a good price. if the price of labor is that because some monopoly set the prices high because they can... then that's fucked up.

Comment: Re: Why only those two states? (Score 1) 193

That's not the case sport.

Some letters from comcast were circulated on this very site that were sent to city councils. And they said "if you allow competition, they'll first concentrate on high value areas, those high value areas will cut into our bottom line, and because of that we won't be able to offer subsidized access to poor people. We would ask that you require any ISP that wishes to offer service to the city to agree to offer service to the ENTIRE city or no part of the city at all."

And that's just one example.

Now what is that called? You might be making the error that these are franchise agreements. They might not be. They might just be disallowing a given company from laying last mile cable. And if they do that for EVERYONE but the duopoly then what does it matter what you call it?

People get tripped up too easily by legal technicalities saying one thing or another isn't happening not realizing that those are just words we assign to behavior and you shift something just little bit askew... and call the same thing something else.

Both Centurylink and Google Fiber are on record complaining about the behavior you are specifically saying doesn't happen anymore.

Given that the duopolies hold sway pretty much everywhere... I'm calling bullshit on your argument and asking you explain why a duoploy exists in the first place without resorting to specious claims that it isn't profitable which is FUCKING RETARDED... or admitting that it is a matter of regulation, taxation, licenses, etc.

It is the latter. Anyone that's looked into it knows what it is and what it is not. A fiber roll out is not that expensive just taking into consideration the cost of the FIBER, the cost of the routers/switches, and the cost of the labor to install it. All that shit is cheap. And you can't tell me that you can't have multiple companies all running wire down the same street. In rural areas or even suburban areas there is plenty of room on the poll. And in urban areas you have underground conduits pretty much without exception and those have shit tons of room as well. And if you need more room... the per line license fee that every city charges for running cable should more then pay for upgrades to the infrastructure to handle as many providers as could possibly make sense.

You've unwittingly bought into a line of bullshit that the duopoly spreads about how they couldn't provide service if anyone competed with them. That's not true in any other industry and it isn't true in ISP either. Its bullshit. It makes as much sense as having ONE oil company or ONE sandwich shop or ONE maker of shoes. Its dumb. If a city can sustain dozens of large cab companies that all compete over the same territory then you can have multiple ISPs. Yes... you're running cables under the ground or slinging them on poles. It doesn't matter. That just requires that the city take its thumb out of its ass for five minutes to set up a rational system to manage it. That so few can or are even inclined to do so is an entirely different issue and I shouldn't have shitty internet because my city is run by fucktards.

Comment: AI is a bit of a stretch (Score 1) 40

The AI in these games are morons. The only ones that are even remotely threatening cheat like crazy.

In video games, the AIs that will rip your lungs out, make bag pipes of them, and play El Degüello on them tend to never miss, see through the fog of war/through walls, and often as not have access to infinite resources, higher health, and do more damage for no reason.

And... THAT is why they're a threat. Not because the little idiots are actually any good at tactics or strategy.

I honestly can't think of a single RTS game where the AI wasn't a joke. Yes, you have to know how to play the game and you might need to learn how the AI thinks a bit. But that's really easy to figure out. In strategy games, winning against AIs typically requires that you just be quick about doing things. Against humans this is important as well, but humans are sneaky.

The AI for example in Homeworld only uses hyperspace jumps to run away and they only bother with critical shipyard facilities. Human players will mass a fleet, dock their fighter craft into their hyperspace capable craft, bait an attack by making it look like their capital ships are unsupported, and then when you move your forces out of position, they'll jump their forces into point blank range, spew out their whole forces, and annihilate you. Humans are also the only ones that will use cloaking fields properly or defense field frigates... etc. And that's the same for Starcraft or CnC or any of it. And in the FPS games the only thing the AIs ever have going for them is that they're damn accurate with their shots because they have auto aim... and they can frequently see through walls so they always know where you are.

What the Civ devs are talking about is not AI but behavior profiles. They do this a lot in strategy games. They'll try to mix it up by giving some of the idiot AIs a preference for air units or a preference for sea units or a preference for building fortresses or something. And that's supposed to be a different AI. But it isn't really. Its just the same AI with a different priority list.

As evidence, the only AI's of this type that tend to be dangerous are the ones that try to rush you really early. Its a high risk high reward tactic that can end you before the game really begins. Those AIs force you to build some defenses really early. I find in any of these games, if you survive that attack... there really isn't anything the AIs can do to stop you. They're so dumb you can kill them at 10 to 1 ratios in practically any game.

Comment: Re:... Driverless cars? (Score 1) 299

as an additional datum... consider the android operating system. Google created that simply to put Steve Jobs on notice. He was trying to extort payments and concessions out of google in exchange for making google the default search engine for iPhones. Google responded to that move by creating a rival smartphone for no reason besides protecting their ability to keep google a relevant search engine in the mobile space. They don't even make money on the handsets. They just gave it all away to ensure broad adoption.

My point with my post was to say that the teamsters are playing with a live high voltage line.

If they are careful and don't act like jackasses then they should be fine. If they don't respect the voltage... They're going to get bug zapped.

Comment: Re:... Driverless cars? (Score 1) 299

No, it is a pet project by companies with lots of money and lots of very smart people... and no real idea how to use either at the moment which is why they're flailing around looking for a purpose.

Kick them in the nuts and call their mothers whores... see if they don't focus on you with a glint in their eye.

Saying they can't go faster presumes they're already going as fast as they can possibly can and are investing as much as they possibly can. That is... at best naive.

Comment: Re:... Driverless cars? (Score 1) 299

[ inËevitÉ(TM)bÉ(TM)l ]

        certain to happen; unavoidable

And who said that a chance had come along to change the dynamic? No such chance has happened here. What they found was a way to make it happen sooner which is AGAINST their interests.

Comment: Re: Why only those two states? (Score 1) 193

... So does Qwest Communications that has laid a good portion of the backbone in the entire country not have the qualifications?

It isn't about ME personally... they do this to EVERYONE that isn't a member of the monopoly. FUCKING QWEST COMMUNICATIONS and GOOGLE amongst many others are by your fucktard logic deemed to not have the qualifications and insurance?

Listen, shit for brains. They literally forbid anyone to run cable that is NOT a member of the monopoly. And that is not because of safety or insurance but because the local officials that issue permits are bribed. Coast to fucking coast.

End of argument. Fucking AC dipshits.

Comment: Re:I hope this wasn't a trojan horse (Score 1) 593

by Karmashock (#49157317) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

Then by this logic, every cable company violates these net neutrality terms by bundling services.

Whatever... we'll see. I hope it works out well... I really do. I just would think everyone had been fucked in the ass enough times to not get all starry eyed because the politicians swore this time it would be different.

These new FCC regs that are 300 pages long... have you read them? Well basically no one has. And to find out what is in them... we'll have to wait for them to be implemented. So have fun with that. Because I'm sure the ISPs didn't sneak some fucked up provisions in there via their lobbyists. Right? Exactly.

what evhs my man. We shall see.

Good day.

Comment: Re: Why only those two states? (Score 0) 193

No. If I want to lay cable... I will be stopped... Here is a quick little education for you, sport:

There are lots of articles on the subject. The ISP monopolies tend to get exclusive agreements in cities in exchange for giving free internet to schools or some other bullshit. And in return for that, the entire fucking city becomes at best a duopoly. That is why the duopologies reign. Because you are literally legally forbidden to compete with them.

And to clarify... I mean running my own fucking cable not sharing their broken down over priced under funded infrastructure.

The party adjourned to a hot tub, yes. Fully clothed, I might add. -- IBM employee, testifying in California State Supreme Court