Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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: Uh, why? (Score 1) 59

No, OS/2 had all kinds of warts. Strange issues with memory management, odd quirks that would cause the system to randomly reboot from a benign cause, horrible hardware support, you name it.

Now, something with better interoperability than WINE on linux (because it can use actual windows drivers), that has all the other benefits of linux (such as 0$ pricetag except for support agreements, stable and reliable kernel and memory management, proper security model, et al) that runs equally as well, or better than MS's offerings? That would have value in the modern age.

Comment Re:Uh, why? (Score 1) 59

100% with dosbox. Dosbox runs windows 3.1, can do network encapsulation/passthrough, and runs on modern windows.

It is also FOSS, and if you absolutely need a way to keep that legacy shit running, you can adapt dosbox to suit your business use case. Considering the low system requirements, you can virtualize the shit out of it.

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 139

No. Contemplate the ultimate conclusion of the creation of AI that is able to define and create newer and better AIs, given the task to maximize efficiency and economy.

The lifestyle of a wealthy plutocrat is HIGHLY inefficient, and uneconomical.

The very robots they depend on for everything (because they have killed everyone else), will stop providing them with resources, once the algorithms produced determine that the only remaining optimizations involve cutting the plutocrats off the teat.

Humanity ended. No-one remains alive.

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 139

Unless you want to marry a robot, a robot cannot provide you with a desirable mate. (and may never be able to, even, if Uncanny Valley cannot be overcome. At best, the robot can create another human to your exact specifications, which just compounds the problem. What defines YOU, the human requesting another human be created, against the human product it creates for your consumption? That human may not desire you. You might own all the robots and wealth in the world, and be undesirable. What then rich man?)

Likewise, the robot cannot spontaneously conjure more property for you to own/localities for you to place factories on, or mines for materials.

There are things that robot labor alone will not resolve. If nothing else, instituting min basic income as a method of assuring a suitably supply of floozies for wealthy plutocrats to fuck, becomes the value that the rest of society has. (Literal proletariat.), and what the plutocrats pay them money so they can continue to exist for.

Such humans will consider themselves more valuable than that, and will come to resist/overthrow the robot owners.

All roads that lead to the 100% adoption of mechanized labor are 100% certain the for collapse of the socioeconomic model.

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 139

certain things are essential to continued existence. Those are genuine needs.

Things like shelter, food, and protection from predators. (which in the modern world, includes financial/legal ones, which have replaced the natural ones.)

Wanting something that is not essential to continued existence is a genuine want, not a need. Things like "better" housing, or "better" food.

When nobody is working, they do not get the universal exchange medium (Money, because their only real commodity worth value, labor, now is worth precisely 0$), and thus cannot even secure for themselves the essential required materials needed for continued existence.

Their neighbors will likewise not have access to the required materials needed for continued existence. The eventual reality will dawn on them, that rather than procure those needed materials from the people who can produce it for free, (using robotic labor), they can procure it from each other, by treating each other's labor as valuable, and assigning a new currency system that respects this. (Or even, trading things with each other in exchange for the risk/action of stealing it from those that can produce it for free, which is then still a labor that has real value, just not to those who own the machines, and have all the money-- and applying an exchange system based on that risk.)

Either way, it will end up with the same eventuality.

Those able to produce it for free, who refuse to provide for free (post scarcity), or allow free access to the exchange medium (Basic income), will only end up without a market to distribute to or produce product for. The value of owning the robots vanishes.

The reality that humans need a place to live, food to eat, water to drink, etc-- will not go away after human labor becomes obsolete. Thus, the humans in question will continue to have those needs, without a viable way to obtain them from the economic system, because they have NOTHING of value to exchange for them.


Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 139

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:Percentage doesn't matter (Score 1) 120

Oh, I think the percentage bit is significant. It shouldn't be news that they've acknowledged reality; but it's remarkable that their responses is so meaningless.

It makes me wonder whether this is just marketing BS or whether they're really that incoherent about strategy.

Many proprietary software companies have prospered in an era of open source acceptance -- even when very good free software alternatives for their products exists (Microsoft, Oracle). But although we don't tend to think of them that way, they tend to be value-priced. You get a lot of (not necessarily great) software engineering for your $199 Windows license fee.

But the play this game you need scale to amortize development costs over many users. If you have more of a niche product competing against a solid open source competitor is going to be really, really hard. As in SAS charges almost $9000 for a single seat license, and that's good for only a year; thereafter you'll have to fork over thousands of dollars every year. That kind of cash pays for a lot of R training.

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 139

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 Typical American approach to political discussion (Score 1) 93

There's never any phased approaches. There's never chipping away at a problem. There's never gradual introductions. There's never any middle ground.

If it's not perfect don't bother trying. If it doesn't cover everything and 100% of use cases then it should be scrapped.

Its amazing how often I see this argument come up, and not just from the ruling class, but also the ruled class. e.g. when Obama care was being proposed we heard all sorts of arguments from people who didn't understand healthcare systems in other parts of the world implying that it's public or private, but never both.

Same here. Just because I don't have perfect privacy doesn't mean I don't want some efforts made to stem at least some people leaving me alone.

Comment Re:As unpopular as it will be to hear... (Score 1) 120

The difference is that when you find the software package you want, if it's open source then you can improve it and squish the nasty bugs

No, the difference is *YOU* may be able to do that, but 99.9999% of open source software users are not capable of doing that regardless of how much source code is available.

In a more corporate world you could pay someone to do something, but then just like with the proprietary vendor when you pay for support you can hold them to account on their bugs too.

TL:DR: Put the money you would have paid for getting closed source into improving open source and everyone will have much better software.

Throwing money at what is in the large part hobby / side projects may squash some bugs but you're equally outta luck if your idea of good differs with what the project manager thinks. Forking and maintaining your own is incredibly expensive for most users who don't see maintaining a software package as a core part of their business.

Throwing money at open source does not mean it will get better.

Slashdot Top Deals

Neutrinos are into physicists.