Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Supplier contracts. (Score 2) 36

given antennagate and all the shit before then, i dont doubt for one second that apple tested how exactly these modem perform and decided they are satisfactory.

if there is a public outcry though apple will blame intel of course (they'd be stupid not to - and being ethical is not trendy these days)

Comment Re:How can that possibly be legal? (Score 1) 289

Well they could disable access to the travel data stream--a resource you're continuously using, maintained by them, at a cost of loads and loads of money per year diffused through thousands of consumers.

400 million copies of Windows XP sold. If they paid 270 programmers full-time for 10 years to develop and maintain XP, Microsoft would have made a profit selling it at $1. What's Tesla's incentive to keep up with firmware and data updates?

For what it's worth, the 2009 DVD to update the 2004 Mazda 3's in-dash navigation system costs $300. Yes, you have to pay $300 for the DVD, then install it into your car yourself, and then you have 2009's map data instead of 2004's. This was also true of the 2007 update.

Comment Re:Why have ademocracy at all? (Score 1) 611

Shows what you know:

Look, sit at my feet and learn or don't bother to argue with me because you know nothing. The very notion that you'd presume to contradict me at this point is offensive to reason.

The only blacklist that should be in place is on people both ignorant of the issues and arrogant enough to think they still have a relevant opinion despite knowing nothing.

As to the dubiousness... it was so dubious that the Hillary campaign fired him. That's how dubious. You want to spout talking points like a trained parrot? Go for it. I've not crackers for you, my dude.

As to police unions, the dubious videos that were so dubious that the campaign believed them entirely and fired him... those videos along with other evidence points to the agitation actually being choreographed by the DNC. So... yawn, my dude... yawn.

As to no one advocating censorship, actually when you start basically firing people for participating in the political process and holding contrary positions on issues that is exactly what you're doing.

But that's okay. You've just changed the rules of the game. So now your opposition can do this to you. Game on.

Comment Re:Why have ademocracy at all? (Score 1) 611

I'm saying that if you don't get funding if you interfere with the attempt by the DNC to create a one party oligarchy that it creates a chilling effect on the democracy itself. You are creating a situation where ruthlessness, deceit, bribery, and extortion decide elections and not the conscience of the voting public.

If that's the future you choose, you may well get it. How many people have you personally killed? Because if the answer is zero... this might not be a future you can compete in, chump. Things are going to get more and more vicious if this is the basis on which power is decided. You can calm it down by not rewarding this behavior... or encourage it.

Why is it that the people crying for rivers of blood and pyramids of skulls always think their blood will be spared or their skulls won't be polished and mounded in the obelisk?

Comment Re: Why have ademocracy at all? (Score 1) 611

Indeed, the name is taken... By the same people. Crypto Marxists are Crypto Marxists.

I know I know... there is no true marxist... there are more flavors of marxist than there are flavors of ice cream at 31 flavors. And if you point out anything any flavor does the other flavors say "he isn't a true marxist because only I am the true marxist"...

Its about as rational as saying that ice cream ceases to be ice cream with the inclusion of sprinkles.

The PV videos showed that Hillary is engaged in brown shirt type activity. Paid agitators at protests for media impact.

The DNC also colluded with Hillary to kill the Bernie campaign.

Your vote means nothing to these people. They will tell you who to vote for and what to believe in.

And those deserving to be treated like peasants will accept it.

Comment Re:Why have ademocracy at all? (Score 1) 611

You don't understand what the word blacklist means. You've likely confused it with "government censorship" which is a different term.

What is more, this "you can't censor someone unless you're the government" argument is moronic. You can absolutely censor someone if you are not the government. You merely are not violating the First Amendment because that only applies to the government. However, the blacklist is itself not a matter of government versus non-government.

And really, if you want to play this game... fine. We'll just divide the country into political camps and neither side will do anything with the other. Great. And there is the end of the republic.

You're a genius.

Comment Re:Why have a democracy at all? (Score 1) 611

... You're the morons that created that situation.

The mishandling of Russian relations and the abandonment of Iraq lead to the current situation.

You people take no responsibility for anything.

Russia is a great power in the world and the cold war is over. We have an opportunity to ally and cooperate on common interests. The Europeans especially in the West are of almost no military value at this point. If we want aid in securing strategic peace in Eurasia, then we are greatly benefited by cooperation with Russia. Add to that, Eastern Europe which generally has a fierce determination to remain independent. We can use their interest to remain free... which we will support and reinforce as a bulwark against any future Russian adventurism whilst directing Russian power either to keep their sphere stable or to advance them into the middle east and various other places to maintain stability.

As to the Islamic Caliphate, that would be the stupid Fabians fucking that one up. Remember the Arab Spring? Remember Libya? Remember who left Iraq thus creating ISIS in the first place?

As to European Caliphates... that is the EU and Merkel. They opened their doors. They intentionally brought in hundreds of thousands of people that they didn't know, didn't vet, and by any half way rational estimation they had to know were full of radicals.

They did that. Not the US. And how you put that at the feet of Trump is baffling.

What is more, both Obama and Merkel are if anything doubling down on the whole thing. So if you want it continue... elect Hillary. Because she's going to try and do that to the US as well. We're already seeing forced settlements of "Syrian" refugees in the US contrary to the wishes of the local communities. They are given housing, they are given food... and everything is paid for with your tax dollars.

Look, keep it up. I'm not going to stay here whilst my country is destroyed around me. The Pacific is full of beautiful tropical islands. I will leave and sip fruity drinks with island girls if you idiots keep this crap up.

Comment Re:Why have ademocracy at all? (Score 1) 611

The vast majority of people in any ideology are never blacklisted. To say this is to confess that you don't understand how blacklisting works. It works mostly by picking prominent people and hitting them. The vast majority of people with communist leanings were not blacklisted by the hollywood McCarthy blacklists. Rather, the most prominent communists in Hollywood were blacklisted.

If you have no problem with blacklisting... then fine. You're on record, Marxists. When you cry foul later... it will be ignored.

Comment Re:DCMA Fair Use / Parody (Score 4, Interesting) 198

Not even.

The phone isn't copyrighted. Its existence and a representation of it as a material fact can't be copyrighted. You can't copyright the existence and form of your product in such a way that, for example, a novel writer can't mention that a person was using a Samsung Note 3 and describe the functionality he was using. Those are material facts.

The phone is a trademark--or at least its visual form and its name are potential trademarks. You may be able to patent the production of a phone in that form (design patent), and trademark a particular shape of a phone (like the Gibson and Fender headstocks--yes, their brand-identifiable shapes are trademarked); that applies only to actually making a phone.

Samsung is legally-required to protect its trademarks, else they lose them. That means a number of things. It means you can't make a DogRun Galaxy 7 phone (especially in substantially-similar design to the Samsung offering) because Galaxy and Galaxy 7 are Samsung trademarks. It means you can't use the Samsung name to brand your phone. If you do these things, Samsung must take action, or else the next guy to do the same thing can point out that Samsung hasn't protected their trademark.

A reference to a trademark isn't a trademark infringement.

A reference to a trademark in a book, in a TV show, in a video game, in literature about your own product, wherever it is, does not infringe trademark. Trademark distinguishes products. If you make a phone and, in the literature, identify that it is distinct from the Samsung Galaxy 7 by pointing out that it has similar or superior battery life to the Samsung Galaxy 7, you haven't infringed trademark because you haven't identified your phone as a Samsung Galaxy 7.

That video isn't parody, by law; it's non-infringing. It's a non-infringing reference to a trademark and to the existence of a product. Artistically, it's satire: it explores an existing material fact with humor and exaggeration. Even if it had no artistic defense, there's no standing for any intellectual property claim--copyright, trademark, patent, or otherwise. Samsung's phones blowing up is a material fact; it might be over-emphasized, but it's a thing that happened in the world, and the phones are a thing that exist in the world, and the thing in the game is a representation of that thing and not a counterfeit product.

Comment Re:Holy flamebait batman! (Score 1) 880

It's something we need to move into, as a matter of social welfare. There's actually an argument (not very sound) that the United States is legally-required to implement something substantially-similar to the system I designed as soon as technically-feasible.

The ideal that we'll need some kind of UBI because of an upcoming crisis is rooted in a misunderstanding of economics. People think automation is a new thing and jobs go away forever; but it's just technical progress, the same as we've been doing for thousands of years. The threat comes when progress occurs too rapidly: if you create rapid unemployment, the slow replacement of jobs doesn't keep up, and you get high unemployment.

The only zero-job economy is a zero-labor utopia where humans do nothing. Flat out. As long as human hands are required somewhere in the process, there's no such thing as permanent job destruction. As well, new jobs range from highly-complex, heavily-specialized disciplines to pushing the buttons on the machines at the correct time; sometimes the sensors and probes aren't nearly as accurate as humans, or just cost a lot more. That's why things like injection-molded plastic forms are removed from the mold by hand and placed on a conveyor: a machine that can handle that job would be ridiculously-complex and unreliable; at the very least, it'd require thousands of hours of QA testing after retooling the IM to make a new form--or you just skip all that maintenance and extra QA and pay someone to do it by hand.

The nature of technology is also that it's invented as soon as it's envisioned in sufficient detail. It's in-production shortly after. People have romanticized about robots replacing 100% of all jobs since Karl Marx proposed it as an immediate, tomorrow-goal for society; then, they made machines and came up with new jobs doing the last bits of work finishing up after the machines--the robot does the job of a hundred men, and one man clears up their mistakes.

The corollary is we're constantly imagining all jobs will go away forever when we see a new technology (machines, trade, or materials--cotton is the bane of the sheep-shearers's union!). We can't imagine what new technology will appear tomorrow and how it will create jobs, because technology reduces labor requirements.

So what actually happens?

We reduce the labor involved, and the costs go down eventually--the relative cost of things is in constant turmoil, and the relative desirability of goods changes. Food has enormous competition. Every good competes with every other good--if you spend more of your money on food, you have less for iPads; if 2/3 of the price of iPads is actual costs and people are only willing-and-able to spend 3/4 of the price, then you need to lower the price (by 1/4, meaning the cost is now 8/9 of the price--an 11% margin instead of 33%). Instead of margins getting fatter and corporate profits soaring, corporate profits average the same marginal percent over the long term.

So people steadily get that spending power back. They then buy more stuff. That creates replacement jobs. If you've eliminated (over a wide time span) 50% of all required labor to make things, then costs are now only 50% as much; prices adjust in total to half of all income; and people now buy twice as many things. It takes half the working-hours to make the same, or the same working hours to make (and buy) twice as much.

Handwaving away all the economics bullshit, you can just state mathematically that a profit margin of X% implies paying wages of 100%-X%. Wages being what they are, the number of labor hours is mediated by how much money is spent. Reducing labor in one place means you have unspent money; you spend it elsewhere; suddenly there's labor there. This works over long timescales; your economy collapses if you replace a third of it with machines over the long weekend.

So, all of that. Yeah. Point?

I don't believe we're going to need to face up to a UBI in the future, in the sense that I don't believe society will collapse from catastrophic job loss and everyone will need free money. I believe the system I designed slows the transition onto technical progress by making human labor lower-cost, thus strengthening competition with lower-labor solution, without lowering take-home (spendable) wages. That means businesses take less risk waiting for automation solutions to come down in price (delaying for a competitive advantage of implementing even-cheaper automation later, at the cost of paying more for labor now); the variation in risk appetite and risk tolerance will lead some businesses to implement earlier and others later, whereas ramping up the cost of labor will cause the higher-risk players to hit their risk limits at the same time (i.e. earlier) as the lower-risk players.

A UBI is one way to avoid a transition like the Industrial Revolution (60% unemployment for THREE GENERATIONS), and instead get a transition like the Information Age (low employment, rapid job growth, rapid economic growth, and a high-speed evolution through generations of new technology and greater economic security--and occasional bitching about 6%-8% unemployment peaks that came a decade apart and lasted 2-3 years; the Great Recession of 2008 was pretty huge). It reduces the risk of a societal collapse in the way people fear one might occur, but that collapse isn't guaranteed anyway.

Other than that, it's also a lot more efficient than our current system--but only once we've got a wealthy-enough nation (which became a stable fact in 2013, in that we could do it while moving around no more money than we're already spending on welfare). Doing this in 1950 would have destroyed America.

Comment Re:Why have ademocracy at all? (Score 1) 611

Actually the DNC colluded with Hillary clinton against Bernie. This is why the last DNC chair stepped down. Emails leaked show there was a strong institutional bias towards Hillary which was a violation of the DNC charter.

So that's the first point you're wrong on.

The second issue is that the PV videos recently released show that Hillary is engaging political bagmen to create media incidents. Keeping mentally ill people on the pay roll for example to use as fight instigators for media stunts. The operative that was outed by those videos was recently fired by Hillary, but it is unlikely that he was the only one.

As to everyone being anti free speech, okay... show me Hillary supporters getting their venture capital funding cut for being Hillary supporters? Failed? Okay... then I was right and you're wrong.

As to mutual blacklisting being fine... so you're fine with the old McCarthy Hollywood blacklists of Communists?

Cool. Now the Marxists are on record. They have no problem with people being censored or blacklisted... they just personally don't like it happening to them. Good to remember. Noted and logged.

Comment Re:Why have ademocracy at all? (Score 1) 611

If you're too autistic to grasp the difference "will not happen because of standing conditions that make it impossible" and saying "won't happen"... then any further argument on that point is a waste of my time.

If you're too autistic to grasp the tactical and strategic difference between someone voting for a real threat to their power and someone that is voting for someone that is not a threat to their power... then any further argument on that point is a waste of my time. What is more, you're not contradicting that people are being blacklisted based on who they support in an election. Would you be so sanguine if this were applied against Hillary supporters?

How many times in the history of the United States of America has a national write in Candidate won the national election? If you have a point then this happens with some frequency. If it doesn't then you're throwing out more irrelevancies. I can't tell if you're going out of your way to be obtuse to argue points in bad faith or if you're so autistic that you honestly think these are valid points.

Because you're either being intentionally obtuse or unintentionally autistic, I suspect you won't acknowledge that were the shoe on the other foot the existing political and social orthodoxy would not be comfortable with Hillary supporters being given the same treatment.

Slashdot Top Deals

The end of labor is to gain leisure.