Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:Laughable (Score 1) 84

Do you really use Bing to find something on the internet (even though google pisses you off with their shitty interface and aggravating "localized results")?

I use DDG, but I readily admit that sometimes I fail over to Bing, then Google. At one point, when DDG and Bing were bother newer, I looked up the same phrase in all three engines. Google took me to Yahoo! Answers. Bing took me to relevant consumer level pages. DDG took me to a dissertation on the topic. (Which was so random I did not assume anyone had ever written).

DDG and even Bing seem to have trended downhill a bit on obscure information (or Google got better). The main reason I use them in that order is mostly to try to prevent a single monolith, but I when I don't find an answer on the first two pages of the other two, I end up back at Google.

Comment Re:Utter BS (Score 1) 84

Overpricing, for example, is quite simple. If you pick a price that is too high for your product, you will wind up with a large surplus of unsold goods.

Oh, then that seems like an error. It's strange to have it marked as "evil" since, even in the most shortsighted version, it's beneficial not to do that. Since the whole conversation was "evil is shortsighted", it seems either you misunderstood the point, or it was a meaningless aside by GGP.

Perhaps you are a socalist, with that completely misguided notion that the value of a good is equal to the value of materials plus labor costs.

Not only is this a strange ad hominem, and not only is that a belief only present in some strands of socialism, but someone who believed that would understand what was meant by "overpricing is evil". Which I clearly did not and based on your explanation still do not do.

Using your monopoly status to force people to pay more than they can afford

So, yes, my assumption we were talking about extracting monopoly profits. You're right that if elasticity is so low (ala crack to an addict) you can literally force them to commit crimes to buy your product. Note, this is the first suggestion of that in this conversation and seems to come out of left field. Please read and respond to my critique.

, slavery was abolished not because one crop of politicians was morally superior to all previous crops, but because technology made it possible and the goodness in human nature overpowered the evil.

Umm... I highly recommend you look up the American Civil War. Your description is simply not accurate.

n the modern environment, where slavery and racism are both illegal and will remain so, racial prejudice will only harm profit. Those who build non-racist-AI will make more money than those who do not, and natural selection will run its course.

I'll grant slavery is illegal (in most, but not all, countries), but racism certainly is not. Certain overt racist acts within commerce are. And, those who are racist are certainly excited about AI, because AI has been show to develop racist tendencies underlying their training materials. And I don't mean "it scanned Mein Kampf" or was allowed to interact with Twitter. I mean, examining trends in foreclosures that had a racial component, detecting predictors of race as predictors of foreclosures (accurately, but evilly), and providing a feedback loop making the loans black people get more expensive which will lead to more foreclosures.

. I also wonder if I am just throwing my pearls before swine, anyway. A certain level of critical thinking is required before one can meaningfully participate in conversations like this.

That's your third or fourth ad hominum. For someone angrily defending the limited idea of "slavery is wrong", "unreasonable prices lead to buyer and seller missing out on a mutually beneficial transaction" and "Yes I meant what you thought I meant with my made up terms" but refusing to respond to my post, the "pearls before swine" comment is ironic.

Comment Utter BS (Score 2) 84

Example: there is money to be made off every race, therefore, racial prejudice harms profit.

Unless you can convince people that your labor base is subhuman, and you don't have to pay them because they are property. Or because racial prejudice is universal in a society so "those people" can be charged more. Or because society can take the money from "those people" so suddenly they have no more to give. Or because, say white southerners control 99% of the assets in the region, and they are racist and refuse to patronize your company if it doesn't have racist policies. I mean, I can keep going if you like, but all of those things really happened.

: overdrawing a market results in market collapse and creates an optimal environment for competing upstarts to emerge, therefore, a balanced profit draw maximizes long term profit.

I don't know what "overdrawing a market" is, and this is the only use of this phrase on the internet (source: Google, Bing, DDG). I assume you mean "extracting monopoly profits." But what happens is the monopoly has a huge incentive to keep itself alive. When an upstart appears, esp. if it's regionally based, the monopoly takes a short term hit to undersell the upstart. A few people will use it because they hate the monopoly, but, in a tragedy of the commons, most people will go to the cheapest option, destroying the upstart. And, due to economies of scale, the upstart is never going to be able to compete on price with what the monopoly can offer. After the upstart is gone, the monopoly raises prices again

overpricing results in clients refusing to buy, seeking competitors even if the offering is lower in quality, or seeking illegal markets. Therefore, pricing affordably and tiered to match value delivered maximizes profit.

You're right. I mean that's why Coca Cola and Pepsi had to lower their prices to compete with RC Cola. Actually, even mocking this point is questionable, since "overpricing" is a strange term that doesn't make sense.

Maximizing profit is likely to be achieved by AI. And that profit is likely to be at the expense of those unable to develop AI to fight back.

Comment It's a cartel (Score 3, Insightful) 84

Good luck being an AI dependent/AI producing startup now. Maybe you could have been purchased before if you started doing well against one of these companies. Now, they're sharing research, so you have to beat their entire combined effort,. And their research will be fed back into the group, so no bidding war for your tech.

But hey, you could always create a search engine that produces better results than Google/Bing/DDG (choose your favorite), get VC, and eventually supplant them. Also, you can buy this nifty bridge and charge tolls on it.

Comment Re:I'm confused (Score 1) 375

This is kinda my point. British law does not "allow" foreign soldiers to invade. Britain has laws promising not to prosecute foreign soldiers ordered to invade Britain. Destroy the country ordering them to do so, fine. Place them in a POW camp until the war is over, fine. But after the war they have to be allowed to go back home. During the war, no more reprisals are allowed against the soldiers after they are captured.

Comment Re:I'm confused (Score 1) 375

A declaration of war is quite irrelevant. All that matters is that the president ordered them to do it.

Heck, the president could order the US Army to invade Britain tomorrow, and, by treaty, those soldiers would be immune to prosecution. The President would not be immune to impeachment. There would be Supreme Court cases and generals refusing orders and courts martial aplenty. But the soldier who complied with an order would be immune from prosecution.

(At least international prosecution.)

Comment Re:I'm confused (Score 1) 375

A soldier committing a crime is still a criminal

A soldier committing a war crime is, sure. A soldier killing another soldier (authorized by his country) is most certainly not. There are treaties that recognize that face.


t goes against basic decency

I live in the real world where governments are endowed with the ability to do a lot of things we don't allow individuals to do. Use deadly force without facing eminent harm, for instance. Intelligence services tend to save more lives than they cost. When you look at a real war, they are important as troops. But they cannot be deployed as easily. They already have to be in place (to a large degree).

Also, I'm not sure what the common decency argument is supposed to mean. I tend to think it violates common decency to take pictures with someone else in the background an upload them to Facebook, yet people do it all the time. Why is this crowdsourced panopticon okay, but a concentrated one not?

Comment Re:I'm confused (Score 1) 375

The letters of marque clearly contradict it. They are not criminals. They are soldiers.

The fact that de jure it was illegal to wiretap is pretty meaningless, because unenforced laws may as well not exist.

Lastly, usually the people doing so are embassy staff, but then we get into PNG and diplomatic immunity.

Comment Re:"My upgrade is better!" "No, mine is!" (Score 1) 147

Oh, is that all you're talking about. Bundled peripheral? That was blatant and obvious? On a device where "the same configuration everywhere in the world" is the primary selling point?

I mean, I grant it may not have been a good move. But compared to removing the OtherOS functionality after they sold the PS3?

Comment Re:Don't be afraid of this! (Score 1) 527

Western companies will run the internet. Google, Apple, Microsoft, dare I say PornHub. They only thrive in an open internet

The US government has a history of not censoring the web. Those sites have a history (with the possible exception of PornHub) of doing underhanded/shady things to close down the competition. Do you really think that its int their interest to let the next huge startups thrive. Or will a set of "neutral" rules slowly accumulate that favorite incumbent companies.

Comment Re:Does anyone care what Trump thinks? (Score 1) 527

Fact is not opinion. Liars may have interesting opinions. More importantly, as the Republican nominee he already wields political power. His stated opinions aren't just "opinions" like you or I have. They're also clear signals to Republican representatives.

Slashdot Top Deals

As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie