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

 



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

Comment Re: They want people to pay for backround music on (Score 5, Insightful) 209

Sorry, these are NOT capitalists. They are monopolists. Their whole business model is based around a government granted monopoly on the production and distribution of creative materials - and in NO WAY reflects any of the principles of capitalism. What they want is for their monopoly to be complete and without recourse by a public forced to purchase their wares at what ever rate and pricing scheme they have dreamt up in some drug induced haze in sleazy Thai brothel. There is not one ounce of competitive spirit within these organizations and never has been. They have fought against every technological advancement since the invention of the printing press (which is how we were saddled with copyright in the first place) and have waged a centuries long campaign to convince everyone that our very language, music, and art should be owned by someone - usually a king or giant company.

Capitalist have their own problems, but these are not capitalists.

Comment Not going towork (Score 1) 556

Remember when pseudofed was over the counter? Now you have to stand in line, present ID, and have records kept. It's how we wiped the meth epidemic out. I mean once you had those registration requirements, the whole meth problem went away! Why, addiction to meth went down the very next day and has been virtually eradicated all by that one simple legislative trick! So now we'll just apply that problem to terrorism! Instant! presto-chango! Pass a law and poof! No more problem.

This is like throwing bacon at a wall. Sure it makes a slapping sound and sticks to the wall for a while, but in the end, the wall gets a greasy stain and the bacon is plain wasted.

Comment Hmmm (Score 1) 229

So maybe this is not about anything more than intergovernmental agency bullshit politics? The Pres can have one, but the State Dept can't because the NSA don't like them this week? I mean the last 16 years have been a buffet of petty bullshit politics from the enormous hogs at the public tax trough. So it would figure that cooperation between agencies might not be high on the priority list.

Comment Old news or Same S*** Different Day (Score 1) 954

This is a guy focused on the short term costs and not the customer. Paying for labor does two things - it allows for a better grade of employee and potentially more customers. This mentality is not new to business, but companies that focus on costs are often the ones that go out of business because all that time and energy spent on cost control is not spent on customer service and product quality. Every company that I can recall that has gone down this road has usually ended up with a bad reputation for service and quality and is ripe for losing their position in the market by someone who does focus on the customer and product quality.

Comment Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch (Score 1) 199

I would rather you were driving than being entertained in the car. Besides, books, kindles, ipads etc can keep your passengers entertained with out compromising the security of the automobile. Furthermore, any software controlling the driving functions of a few thousand pounds of moving metal and plastic had better tested far better than today's Windows or IOS. This is mission critical stuff, like if it fails people die. That can't be held to the same "not guaranteed to even work" level to which most PC and console software is held. An over the air patch that accidentally kills a few thousand people is not going to be the same level of fuck up as a windows update that eats the data off a few thousand hard drives.

Comment Re:Ownership? (Score 1) 199

NOPE! You will own the car. The software you will license and the data generated from your use of the software will be used to monitor your behavior and adjust your costs accordingly. Data on operations and locations of the vehicle will be shared with business partners to ensure that the car is operated in agreement with the terms and conditions of the license, insurance policies, and law enforcement. Should you breech the license agreement at any time, you can and will be stranded with out the use of the software. The hunk of metal and plastic, however, is yours to have towed to an appropriate recycling center. Should anything bad happen, you will agree as a part of the license, to indemnify the maker of the car and all associated partners in perpetuity. Should any breech in the UTRASSECURECAR(TM) software security occur, you agree to pay all damages and fees associated with the breech and hold the car maker and software maker harmless. The car may only be serviced by authorized technicians any breech of this license will terminate immediately your rights to use the software. The software is licensed to you AS IS and is not guaranteed to be suitable to operate a motor vehicle. Operations of a motor vehicle with this software is done strictly at the risk of the vehicle operator.

It's a bleak future

Comment Re:Nice future (Score 4, Insightful) 199

Send you payment information to XXX.XXX.XXX or the car won't start.

Hi! Nice to see your kids driving now. Boy, wouldn't it be horrible if the steering went out on the free way? Act NOW to prevent this tragedy by sending a secure payment to us.

Good morning Police Mayor! Please ensure that proper payment to us is made or all the cars in your city will stop working correctly.

Just a few things that can be done with complete connected cars and their automatic updates.

Comment Re:Autonomous Driving (Score 2) 199

I have NEVER had a software update on any of the vehicles that I have driven. NEVER. I have had regular maintenance that I have done myself for decades. There is no reason to have a software update for a car unless that car was defective to begin with. The information that we have so far indicates that these cars are unsecured and open to tampering from afar. The spying done by government and auto companies is bad enough, but foreign script kiddies wrecking cars for fun and profit is not a path we should go down.

Comment Hiding the Truth (Score 1) 177

When the first of the concentration camps in NAZI Germany were liberated, there was some doubt among those not present about the veracity of the reports. The sheet scale of the horror was hard to comprehend as it had never been done in modern history. Thousands of pictures and movies were made of the camps in order to preserve the evidence of just how bad humanity can be. Hiding the truth of those horrors does not prevent them from recurring.

The truth about what terrorists say is important for people to hear and see. It is important for people to see the words and the faith twisted into violence and horror so that they will know what those people are doing. Some people will be afraid, but that will not stop the terrorist - nor will hiding those images from the weak willed benefit society. This is a struggle between what is good, human rights, and what is evil - killing people for a difference of religion, opinion, or in many cases sheer greed. Censoring knowledge because a few people might be upset by the images or descriptions is not a valid reason.

WE have to accept that this violence, this evil, is a part of who we are as a species. Hiding from it will not allow us to learn to control it and keep the horror at bay. Honesty is the first step to becoming a better people. We have to face this terrorism and fight it with what ever means we have. Hiding from it will not stop it.

Comment Re:Nothing New - not very smart (Score 1) 258

(1) Begging the question is entirely different than stating an opinion. An opinion is never a logical fallacy, by definition.
(2) Cooperation is not sharing. Again, by definition.
(3) Cooperation is not optimization. Optimization may include cooperation, but does not require it. Sometimes cooperation is less efficient. Optimization can be achieved through automation reducing the resources and people required thereby eliminating cooperation entirely.
(4) Two problems with the Amish as an example of a sharing economy. First, it is bad logic to take a tiny community (The Amish are 0.02783% of the global population) and apply it to the whole of humanity. There is certainly evidence that some systems of governance and economics will not work based upon geography. Humans have encountered many different geographical problems on this planet and have made many different systems to facilitate living in those regions. One size will not fit all. Second, the Amish help each other, but they can exclude those who do not follow their strict rules with out resorting to murder, and they are fairly capitalistic in their economic activities. You are mistaking a religious sect that limits access to technology for sharing. The Amish communities work because they account honestly for human nature and only include those willing to live by their rules. Not a good example and NOT what the Sharing Economy is as described by the article. A microcosm is not an economy - an example of sharing system that works would be the ancient monasteries of medieval Europe. However, that is a monastery not an economy. The whole of the European economy did not function that way. Small groups may share in a commune system, but this is the exception and not the rule.
(5) > Just because most men are to stupid to value the spiritual truth of "You receive what you give", and "Treat others how you want to be treated" in spite of man's obsessive path of destruction, this in no way negates man's potential to live a harmonious and in unity with all things. Both of these quotes are not basic human nature. They are ideals that humans strive to achieve. The facts, the demonstrable facts, are different: You do not receive what you give - you receive based upon your ability to convince others - what you labor is worth, what your service is worth, etc. You may treat others how you want to be treated but they are under no obligation to do the same to you and very often don't care enough to notice. Ideals are wonderful, but they are not something upon which a real working economy is based. Whining about that cruel fact has been the foiled battle cry of every Utopian with an IDEA that the whole world would be BETTER if everyone just GOT ALONG! But humans are humans and aren't changing very fast -- certainly not as fast as our technology. Complaining about the selfishness of humans is not, has not, will not change human nature. Again, in order to build a stable economic system that works for everyone, human nature in all of its variety must be honestly accounted. Crying about how the majority of the human race doesn't live up to the ideal values promoted by any decent philosophy is wasting time and effort. None of us can change the human race. Let me state that again: NONE of US can change the HUMAN race. We have neither the tools to do so nor the ethical trust required to make such modifications to our progeny.
(6) I have no illusions that the human race as it is now will ever see an end to war and commerce - both are fundamental to who we are as a species. WE have been trading and fighting since before we had fire. War and commerce have driven every endeavor, every advancement, and continue to do so. Like gravity, this is a truth that simply is and it cares not for our opinions of its fairness, rightness, or purity. Where humans blunder most often is when we mistake our fictional ideas of who we are for our actual selves.

Comment Nothing New - not very smart (Score 4, Insightful) 258

Forget for a moment that the sharing economy is based upon some very wrong assumptions about human nature - things that any parent can tell you are not a normal part of human nature, and focus upon the inspiration for this new economic model - Feudal Europe, the village commons, the Great Depression. Nothing in the article is hopeful or progressive - it's all been done before by desperate people trying very hard not to starve to death. How many jobs did people have during the Great Depression? Lots. They just lumped them all together and said "We did what we had to do to survive." This is just another rich asshole's version of "you are poor because you are lazy - now get another low paying job." This goes completely away if wages are required to be livable.

The concept of the Sharing economy is stupid at its core. This "panacea" is ignoring the basic human territoriality regarding property. Children have to be FORCED to share. They will throw a temper tantrum when required to share. Adults are little different. Smoother, less prone to emotional outbursts and more prone to murder than toddlers. The idea of a "sharing" economy is as dumb as any other Utopian vision that makes assumptions contrary to human nature. Every sharing economy is based upon an outside requirement - men with weapons making unarmed peasants work the land in the Feudal "Sharing Economy." Starvation in the Great Depression. Otherwise, people revert to their nature of territoriality over property.

Comment simple (Score 1) 692

It will be like LASIK or really good dental work - not deemed medically necessary and thus available only to those with the money to buy it. A few countries, with small, aging populations might toy with providing it to their citizens, but the majority won't have it available to them. Having lots of youthful adults would diminish the profits of the medical/insurance complex. It will be hard on some types of plastic surgery, but overall, you won't ever see it except on movie stars and billionaires.

Slashdot Top Deals

Uncertain fortune is thoroughly mastered by the equity of the calculation. - Blaise Pascal

Working...