Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Apologia for the Firewall theory (Score 1) 263

There's a write up for the Firewall theory at http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/06/05/firewalls-burning-brightly/

And as you guys are commenting about what the family should do ... I do not think that guy would last that long because, according to the firewall theory, once he hit the event horizon the entanglement would occur

Submission + - Has The Next World War Already Started? (eweek.com)

darthcamaro writes: The cold war is over but a new war amongst the superpowers is already in full swing. A former NCIS and NATO commander is set to detail evidence at the upcoming Black Hat Brazil event that indicated that World War C (cyber) has already begun.

"It seems to me that you had better be hacking in peacetime to get ready for war," Geers said.


Comment Stop denying our rights be destroying the word! (Score 1) 327

Whether you make up a new "right" or not, you can't pay someone for paternity leave if the money is already spent on government mandated BS.

You seem to be confused about the definition of the word "right" is, though. When you talk about giving people new "rights", you've made the word virtually meaningless, turning it into a synonym for "entitlement" or "privilege". This is important, very important

The right to free speech means I can voice my opinion EVEN IF THE MAJORITY OR GOVERNMENT DOESN'TLIKE IT. You have the right to a fair trial even if the government would rather ramrod you. The Bill of Rights is a list of freedoms the government "shall not infringe". Note it doesn't say "should give you", it says "shall not infringe". Rights are not at the government's discretion. They can not take your rights away because your rights don't come from the government. Your right to think your own thoughts is intrinsic to your humaness; government can only infringe your rights or not. They can not take them because they did not give them.

Your natural rights as a person include your right to have your own thoughts, and your right to your own production - to eat what you grow in your own garden, to live in the house you built.

If you build your house for your family, I do not have the "right" to kick you out and take it for my family. I do not have any right to take your food you grew in your garden. My wife is pregnant at the moment. That has zero bearing on your rights to your own food. You may choose to share some tasty vegetables with me, but knocking up my wife doesn't give me the right to take your stuff.

You want to create a new government mandate? Fine. Do not lie and call it a "right", though, because as soon as you pretend that government creates rights, government is justified in taking away your rights that "they gave you".

Comment Re:Another one that has turned evil (Score 1) 258

The current state is not a problem and in fact is good. But if the article describes their end-game accurately, this "good period" will be limited and followed by utter evil.

At which point the door will be wide open for competition to come in. At the point the predatory monopoly raises their prices they lose the only thing deterring competition... this is especially true on the Internet, where competitors are just a click away.

Comment Re:The problem being... (Score 5, Insightful) 258

Amazon opting to be flat, effectively at 0% margin

No, Amazon is not operating at 0% margin. Amazon is generating healthy profits from its business. But it is choosing to reinvest those profits rather than either pay them out as dividends or pile them up in the bank.

The idea is to endure long enough to starve out competitors until monopoly acheived. At that point, rather obscene profit can be reaped.

Since the basis of your argument is factually incorrect, there's really no reason to go into this, but I want to. Your conclusion "At that point, rather obscene profit can be reaped" is a common assertion of predatory pricing theories... but one that doesn't really seem to actually exist. In the last few decades courts have added a test for predation that requires that there be a realistic prospect of recouping the losses due to predatory pricing in the ensuing period of monopoly rents. After courts adopted that test, no antitrust litigation based on a predation theory has succeeded, because it's extremely hard for anyone to rationally believe that losses will be recouped.

Why? Two reasons.

First, predatory pricing is ruinously expensive. Far more so for the would-be monopolist than its targets. This is because in order for a company to be in position to execute such a play it must already own most of the market, which means that the net effect of the below-cost prices it sets get multiplied by the volume it already does, plus the new share that it acquires from its targets.

Second, assuming the monopolist does manage to drive out all competition, and begins charging obscene prices, it becomes not only possible but very profitable for competitors to enter (or re-enter) the market. Actually, because of this, if the competitors have access to good capital markets it's unlikely that they'll be driven out of business at all, because everyone will recognize the higher prices which are to come and so capital will be available to enable the competitors to survive the price war.

So-called "post-Chicago" theorists have been able to construct some narrow scenarios in which predatory pricing is rational, but they're very narrow and ultimately boil down to circumstances in which the competitors can be successfully bluffed by the would-be monopolist.

Note that all of this is distinct from a different scenario, in which the big player isn't being anti-competitive at all, but is instead is just much more efficient, and therefore has much lower costs. That sort of "monopolist" can maintain healthy profit margins while pricing goods below what the competition can afford. This, however, is not harmful to consumers, in fact it's good for consumers. Of course there's the possibility that once the competition is driven out the monopolist will raise prices while retaining its low costs. Should that ever happen, then that would be an appropriate time for regulators to step in. I'm not aware of any real-world examples, though.

Comment They are preaching to the sheeples ... (Score 5, Insightful) 165

All the lies and deceit that has come along from them so far means that WE. DO. NOT. TRUST. WHAT. YOU. SAY.

Don't you get it yet ?

They are using Youtube, a place where the sheeples congregate

They are NOT talking to the people like you and me --- they are talking AT the sheeples

As long as the sheeples in America ( and the world ) believe their lies, and the sheeples do believe them, NSA will get to continue their deceits without any hindrance

Comment Death wish because you predict. Twisted human bein (Score 1) 264

> Amazon will abuse its power once it has attained monopoly status as
a supplier.

So you predict that Amazon will have a monopoly , ignoring the fact it isn't possible (some customers prefer a bookstore, so they will always have customers).
You then predict that after Amazon achieves this impossible feat, they could abuse their position.
Based on those two predictions, you wish a horrible death on your fellow man.

You're a vile, twisted person aren't you.

Comment Re:If a consumer didn't pay a premium for electric (Score 1) 327

So you favor stealing money from the rest of us (That's where that subsidy money comes from) in order to support your personal decision.

Stealing money from you? That's a rather twisted way of looking at things. You're saying that my money is yours. I disagree, completely. I think 80% of the federal taxes I pay are theft from me, and I'm perfectly happy to reduce that burden in any (legal) way I can. And I still pay plenty.

I'm philosophically opposed to subsidies for EVs (or any other product). If you offer me the chance I'll vote against them. However, if you offer me a legal way to reduce the taxes I pay -- regardless of its basis -- I'll take it.

And, even without the subsidies, I'd still have bought the EV, because it still would have made financial sense!

And I am sure you rant about how evil corporations steal from the people too, don't you?

I don't think I have ever in my life ranted about evil corporations stealing from people.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 640

This is a bit like asking physicists to come up with a reason that newtons apple falls that DOESNT involve gravity. It just stops being science.

Why, exactly, is this not science? Science is a method, not a tucking religion! Our understanding of the universe is imperfect at best and it's certainly POSSIBLE that there is another explanation. Not at ALL likely, but possible.

If everyone had your hostility toward retesting what we already know, we'd still think the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe.

Comment Re:Governor Appointed (Score 1) 640

The post he responded to referenced Elon Musk and Bell Labs. Going a bit further afield the old xerox PARC and IBM of of did plenty of research. Microsoft spends a bunch on pie in the sky stuff. John Carmack plowed plenty of money into building rockets.

Has government funded research produced absolutely incredible results that we're all better off for? Abso-freaking-lutely! Is the government the ONLY one that spends on basic research with no immediate application? Absolutely NOT!

Comment Re:Amazon's competitors still leaving an open goal (Score 1) 258

Yesterday I bought smoke detectors from Amazon. There are perfectly ordinary smoke detectors, but there is one little problem; these are bit more expensive than some other, similar smoke detectors; a couple extra features the really cheap $9 smoke detectors don't have.

Why should that be a problem? Unfortunately, because these aren't the cheapest conceivable smoke detectors, the Home Depots, ACEs and Lowes of the world won't stock them in store. The retailers almost never stock anything other than the lowest end manifestation of any given product on their shelves.

Many of us are familiar with this phenomenon due to having built a computer from components; you can't find the optimal parts at Best Buy et al. They carry only PNY dreck. The good, full featured items are only available from on-line re-sellers.

If you are thoughtful and do not simply "sort by price" and invariably pick the cheapest item on the list then traditional retailers are useless; they operate only on price. Products that fail to be the cheapest are simply not available in-store.

For me, Amazon is a liberation; before I could get effectively anything from that one site I had a choice; a.) buy exclusively low end stuff from the brick and mortar retailers or b.) hunt down yet another site the specializes in some product, create yet another account, share personal details with yet another online entity and deal with the vagaries and failings of yet another outfit.

Science

How an Astronaut Falling Into a Black Hole Would Die Part 2 263

First time accepted submitter ydrozd writes "Until recently, most physicists believed that an observer falling into a black hole would experience nothing unusual when crossing its event horizon. As has been previously mentioned on Slashdot, there is a strong argument, initially based on observing an entangled pair at the event horizon, that suggests that the unfortunate observer would instead be burned up by a high energy quanta (a.k.a "firewall") just before crossing the black hole's event horizon. A new paper significantly improves the argument by removing reliance on quantum entanglement. The existence of black hole "firewalls" is a rare breakthrough in theoretical physics."

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: #44 Zebras are colored with dark stripes on a light background.

Working...