Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 64

Nope, you are thinking about that entirely wrongly.

It is not that everyone has so much money that it becomes worthless through deflation--

It is that nobody has any to spend, but still have outstanding needs. It becomes about as useful a commodity to facilitate trade as refined uranium is. Which is to say, not at all, because nobody except a very few have any refined uranium. The same will be true for money.

Instead of money, people will trade something else. Fuck, it could be damn bottle caps for all I know. Just not money as investors consider it.

To be useful in the process of securing goods or services, ordinary people need to have that commodity to trade. This is not devaluation due to deflation, it is devaluation due to lack of liquidity in the market.

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 64

It makes perfect sense.

If your working contribution costs more to automate than it takes to pay your wage, you will be safe from automation (at least until automation drives down the costs of further automation sufficiently to resolve this case).

If your wages are on par with, or greater (amortized over time) than the costs of replacing you with automation, your job is at high risk of being eliminated to automation as a cost saving measure.

Combined, the only "safe" class of workers are those in a situation where automation is, for some reason other than cost, unable to replace them, which is a category that gets eroded quickly due to increasingly capable robot and software designs.

Human society NEEDS to be ready for the inevitable reality where NOBODY works, and the only people who "Make money", are those who OWN robots, or have a share in companies, and milk their investments.

Money ceases to be an essential functional commodity in such a circumstance, as people will invent alternative methods of exchange to obtain necessary services.

Either money has to be distributed for no labor expended by a governing body (basic income strategy), or true post-scarcity future economic models need to be created. There are no alternatives where really rich people get everything and everyone else just dies. (Sorry plutocrats, but that is how you destroy the human race, not live immortal, pampered lives.)

Comment Re:Fait Acompli? (Score 1) 208

Sadly they won the biggest battle, except for open source 99.999% of all software is licensed through an EULA not copies sold like a book so you don't have any property rights to begin with.

Guess what: shrink-wrap EULAs have NOT ever been upheld as valid by any precedent-setting court. (There are some cases that address somewhat similar-issues, but not any that address an EULA presented after-the-fact in the context of a retail sale.) The idea that EULAs are anything but meaningless contracts of adhesion that offer no consideration to the buyer and are therefore invalid is propaganda that, sadly, you've fallen for.

Comment Re:Fait Acompli? (Score 4, Interesting) 208

Their argument is based on the premise that the long-standing "First Sale" doctrine doesn't apply, and that their patent rights extend to any subsequent use of their patented product

...which is fucking absurd on its face! After all, do people have the fundamental right to own property or not?

And that is the real issue here: with the DMCA, and now with patents, these fuckers are trying to create some sort of bizarro-world where Imaginary Property is not only no longer imaginary, but somehow actually superior to the right to own actual property! They want to enslave us into perpetually renting everything we use, which is no less a tyranny than being paid in scrip and being forced to buy from the company store, or being a serf indentured to the land. It is nothing less than digital Feudalism, and must be stopped at all costs!

Comment Re: This has happened before. Humanity excelled. (Score 2) 198

You picked one of many reconstuctions, and it's one that shows current temperatures warmer than the medieval warm period. And it's also one that has been criticized:

At the EGU General Assembly a few weeks ago there were no less than three papers from groups in Copenhagen and Bern assessing critically the merits of methods used to reconstruct historical climate variable from proxies; Bürger’s papers in 2005; Moberg’s paper in Nature in 2005; various papers on borehole temperature; The National Academy of Science Report from 2006 – all of which have helped to clarify that the hockey-stick methodologies lead indeed to questionable historical reconstructions.
~Hans von Storch, May 2007

why wouldn't you cite Ljungqvist's 2010 30-proxy reconstruction, which was more widely supported? Ljungqvist's chart Is it because it shows both the Medieval Warm Period as well as the Roman warm period were just as warm or warmer than today?

Comment DMCA doesn't work on patents (Score 0) 35

Unlike copyrights, which have the DMCA to help them force companies like eBay to take down materials that allegedly violate copyright, there's no such protection for patents. Instead, patent owners need to directly take the issue up with the actual person violating their patent. ...which is how it should be. ...which is how copyrights should be too, but that's another topic.

Comment Re:Holy Blinking Cursor, Batman! (Score 3, Insightful) 223

That's because most "programmers" are utter crap. They don't know their tools. They don't know the language that the program in. They don't stay up-to-date.

I don't "know the tools" or "know the language" until I'm fucking using them. Then I google whatever the fuck it is I need to do using whatever the fuck it is some clown has put in front of me, RTFM, and get it done. Interviews test for the dumbest fucking shit. I for one generally don't care what fucking language or environment I'm in. With documentation (the fucking internet 99.9% of the time) learning how to do X in Y is trivial. Knowing that you need to do X instead of x is the trick. When you give an applicant a test to do X in Y, you're just testing if they know Y and maybe if they have memorized X. You're not finding out if they understand anything or can think critically.

They cannot reason about problems. 95% can't do the simplest of problems. You have to really deep before you find people who can talk about design principles, design by contract, etc.

When your "problems" are all pulled from the same "Shitty Questions and Tests for Shitty Interviews" site/book, what do you expect? If you're looking for people who talk about "design principles" or "design by contract", you're retarded. There are only three design principles: Correct, secure, and fast. There is only one design contract: Deliver X for $Y. If you don't understand what X is or why it's X and not x (even if the customer doesn't, or if the customer asks for X when they need x) then you're gonna have a bad time. See Oracle and IBM and anyone who's ever contracted with them.

You're getting mindless applicants because you're asking mindless questions. You cannot discern a competent programmer/developer from an incompetent one because you're looking for memorization, certifications, etc. Of course, the people conducting the interviews are typically not competent programmers/developers, so they don't know what else to look for or how else to evaluate applicants.

Comment Re:Can't see the forest for all the trees (Score 1) 385

Batman vs Superman was an okay one time movie, not worth the popcorn and soda that a theater experience requires, but watchable one time movie, just to see WonderWoman and Aquaman.

Certain actors shouldn't fill certain roles. It would have been much better to find an unknown to play Batman than put Ben Affleck in that role. He doesn't have the ability to pull it off. Being behind the mask, requires greater acting ability than normal, because you have to convey more with movement. It doesn't work for Ben as Batman. Though He works in "The Accountant" because his acting ability is fairly wooden, like the character, it works.

Henry Cavill sort of works for Superman, mainly because he "looks" the part.

Comment Re: Dictionary attack? (Score 1) 44

Even if we took it to mean that, it doesn't change ZDNet's inability to use the info to narrow the range of dates.

The password was clearly still associated with an account, even if that account was no longer is active use. Likewise, the password may have been reused with inactive accounts elsewhere, any one of which may have been compromised at any time. Just because the person only used the account in question between 2011 and 2015 doesn't mean that that's the only time the credentials could have been stolen.

Comment Re:It might not always be partially incorrect (Score 1) 44

It's fucking ridiculous.

"Some Of Hacker Group's Claim Of Having Access To 250M iCloud Account Aren't False"

Let's start with the easiest thing to correct. "250M iCloud Account" should be "250 Million iCloud Accounts".
And while we're telling shitty headlines to fuck off, we can tell them to at least follow their own bullshit rules and not capitalize the first letter of "of". I fucking hate style guides (because they're arbitrary, inconsistent, and ambiguous) but no major style guide (such as AP, Chicago, APA, and MLA) says to capitalize "of" in a headline.
Now let's tackle the core problem here: "Some", "Claim", and "Aren't". As far as I know, we're counting this as a single claim, so we can say that "some" of it "isn't false". If we're counting it as multiple claims, we can say "some" of the "claims" (plural) "aren't false".
For bonus points, we can kill off the double negative as well.

Slashdot Top Deals

When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal