Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Better be ready to be beat up when layed off w (Score 1) 531

So then you are looking at specialized equipment thinking it can replace a human at a generic job? I think you are doing a couple of things wring here: underestimating our desire to build generic robots while overestimating capacity of specialized equipment to replace people at generic jobs within newer companies that don't have the capital to acquire or build very specialized equipment. In either case I think my points still stand, if the equipment is too specialized and expensive, humans can compete if they can provide quality, if the equipment is so general purpose and ubiquitous that anybody can afford it with a few months of pay, then people would be acquiring it to rent it out to businesses or to do jobs just like the owner operator truck drivers of today.

As to taxes and regulations, obviously they are making human labour less competitive compared to capital, is this even a question? A robot will not sue the company for 'wrongful termination' or for 'sexual harassment' or anything else for that matter (regardless of the merits). Regardless of what /. says, robots will not form unions,there will be no mandate for payroll tax or minimum wage or medical insurance, etc. These are government inventions that make people uncompetitive against labour.

Comment I hope AI can make coding redundant (Score 1) 71

We should hope that AI can learn to code and do it well enough that I could converse with it in a human language, define the problem as I see it and it would immediately (it would be immediate, right) give me a number of ready solutions to pick from. The amount of new product development that could take place would be staggering, we could quickly realise any idea, I hope that the AI would be good enough at that point to do user support and maintenance for the selected solution.

You, guys, are basically looking at it all wrong. Why shouldn't we desire to have systems at our disposal that would be good enough to create software (and at some point hardware) that we could 'program' by explaining high level requirements to a machine? The machine would have to ask more questions, the testing would reveal problems, the machine could do support and maintenance. I see this as a huge net positive, not as something that would hurt us but as something that would save us from decades of sitting on ass, getting less and less active over time, going blind from the screen... And we could never achieve everything we needed anyway at the speed of a human coder.

Comment Re:Apple PAYS for your SS, Medicare, Welfare and W (Score 1) 210

No, US bonds are the definition of ponzi scam that even Madoff would be awed by. U S A cannot return the borrowed VALUE of the money, that is what the Fed and the rest of the central banks are involved in, global inflation, writing off the debt without admitting the technicality of the default. The actual USA debt is all of the federal, state, municipal, corporate and personal borrowing that exceeds 221 trillion dollars and cannot be repaid under any circumstances.

Comment Apple PAYS for your SS, Medicare, Welfare and Wars (Score 1, Interesting) 210

The actual headline should be: USA government is still able to run the ponzi scams such as SS, Medicare, all other Welfare payments as well as waging its wars thanks to Apple and others who are *STILL* purchasing and holding their bonds.

Apple is getting $6 from each individual in interest rates over *YEARS*? Think about it: over *YEARS* Apple has gained *ONLY* $6 per person while buying insane amount of US debt.

Apple is losing money in this transaction, it could have used that money much more effectively in many other ways and instead they are buying US Treasury debt.

Apple and the rest of the bond holders: what are you going to do when there is a mass exodus from the US debt? Will you be the first in line to dump it? I think you are not going to be the preferred seller.

Comment Politely disagree (Score 2) 210

I think it's a rather interesting article, but not from the slant given. Apple buys US Treasury bonds, like many companies do. The US Debt is massive, and at least this is one way we get to see the actual impact of paying this debt.

I would find it more interesting to see this tackled as a "Fix the debt" problem. The fact is, this is not a "US Tax Payers give Apple money" issue. The US pays out money to ALL treasury bond purchasers at the same rate. People with more money to pool will obviously get more in payments.

Comment Re:So you say, Solandri.... (Score 1) 250

To the contrary, the Fed employed a large variety of new techniques.

- all of these so called 'new techniques' are the same old technique of printing money. The so called 'operation twist' (it should be called 'operation screw you' instead) was about the Fed taking upon itself to absorb the long side of the curve, buying long term bonds and selling short term bills, which means turning the US debt into short term, variable rate mortgage. Yeah, that worked so well in the housing market, why not do it for the entire government debt, right?

USA is *not* on any path to increase interest rates. That's buying into the nonsensical government propaganda hook line and sinker. USA SHOULD have normal interest rates and should have NEVER went to 1% with Greenspan and to 0 with Bernanke.

Until Bernanke, Greenspan has proven himself to be the worst idiot and after him Bernanke has proven that no amount of idiocy can be unmatched a worse idiot and then Yellen has proven that gender doesn't matter at all, idiots come in all forms, sizes and genders.

Greenspan was an absolute disaster, Bernanke was an absolute disaster, Yellen is an absolute disaster in a skirt. What's funny is that at least Greenspan admits it *now*, maybe it will take Bernanke another 10 years to admit it as well. Yellen will never admit it.

Comment Doomed to fail (Score 1) 304

They are right, this would be a huge boost to revenue if done correctly. Unfortunately they will never do it correctly. First, this is a far cheaper distribution option so why are they charging more than the theater ticket price? Just cut out the theater middle man and keep his cut of the profits. The studios could even collaborate and build their own MPAA non-profit distribution service so studios pay only operating costs and all the profits pass through and then lay off all the obsolete middle men. Offer direct to consumer ultra high quality streams and site direct blu-ray sales from the get go, use an algorithm that accounts for the film budget and gradually lowers price inversely to purchase rate and time and at some point shifts to a bucket that is available for on demand streaming with a fixed monthly fee Netflix style that after expenses simply gets divided out according to proportion of views. All playstation vue style with 5 simultaneous devices.

If existing boxes of this sort are any indication they will lock down playback controls and not allow you to pause or replay the movie. This obsession with reducing the quality of experience for the consumer in order to keep third party services alive is what is hurting. Instead of fully embrace the kind of enhanced experience you could provide as well as the cost reduction of optimized distribution. The better the legal avenues the less it will be worth the hassle and risk of piracy. Forget legal risks, you have to find content, risk fakes, risk bad quality, and pay for equipment to store content. If someone is doing it as a cost saving measure they either couldn't have afforded much content in the first place or couldn't afford the volume of content they consume.

Slashdot Top Deals

If in any problem you find yourself doing an immense amount of work, the answer can be obtained by simple inspection.