Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:bezel-less curved edge (Score 1) 85

F that! I already have a hard enough time holding my phone with a bezel without accidentally touching the edges of the screen. Forget putting adding a protective case to protect your multi-hundred dollar toy as you won't be able to use the edges of the screen.

I traded in my S7 Edge specifically because the curved edges were so damn annoying. I would almost constantly trigger functionality on the edges of the screen, interrupting what I was doing. Adding a case did not help: the pressure the case put on the edges actually made it worse. Touching elsewhere on the phone would distort all the interconnected pieces of the case just enough to trigger a touch in a random place. It was also annoying when playing games where I might need to touch near the edge of the screen: the curvature made it harder to read the screen and touch the edges.

Upgrading to an "old-school" flat-screen phone eliminated all of the annoyances caused by the curved edges. I will never buy another curved-screen phone. Since Samsung is committed balls-deep to technology that actively pisses me off, I doubt I will ever buy another one of their phones.

Comment Re:Who will care? (Score 1) 483

The problem with that is that while OpenVPN works and is relatively straightforward to set up, it's not the best performer in town. I have an OpenVPN endpoint too, and use it in situations that make sense for me.

I don't believe your default route is one of them. Whatever VPN I end up using, I'm probably going to take known sites and send them straight out. I'm not concerned about anyone knowing that I visit Slashdot, Ars Technica, Google, Amazon, Newegg, etc. What I'm concerned about are the other sites - the places I go based on a (https-based, of course) Google search.

Comment Re:What a world.... (Score 1) 255

"Free market" is a political buzz phrase with no real meaning in economics (look it up).

While I agree that "free market" is mainly a political term... in economics the same concept is simply referred to as a "market". There is no need for a term like "free market" in economics because in economics all trade is assumed to be voluntary, and consequently all markets are free markets. Occasionally economists will speculate on the likely effects of non-economic influences like price floors or taxation, but the very existence of these influences undermines the most basic foundations of economic calculation. This is part of the reason why economic predictions tend to go off the rails when you start introducing distortions like patents, copyrights, monetary policy, and taxes, all of which are decidedly non-free: they belong to the domain of political action rather than economics.

There is also no such thing as a free market when there is no regulation...

That is the same as saying "there is no such thing as a free market." A regulated market cannot by definition be a free market. The "free" in "free market" means that all interactions within the market are voluntary: the permissible actions are exactly those which do not infringe on others' property rights, no more and no less. Regulations are imposed involuntarily. The two are not compatible.

A free market may well include monopolies and cartels, but in general these are due to the presence of regulations, not their absence. The more heavily regulated the market the higher the barriers to entry and the more prone it becomes to regulatory capture, both of which favor a small number of large, well-established players.

Comment those are taxiways (Score 1) 321

Look more closely at the diagram.

The dual-circles around the buildings are taxiways. (Notece that, in addition to being far narrower than an airplane and too close in, they're also not circular, but have a flattened area at the right side, making it more like a "D" than an "O".

The runways are the wide, straight, "roads", of which you see just a tiny chunk at the very boundary of the picture. They're essentially tangent to the taxiways - slightly out from them.

This is just a standard airport designs with straight runways.

Comment Re:Raise your hand if... (Score 1) 365

I would imagine that most places that take cash only advertise it when you walk in. You know going in that you need plastic. If there's no notification, then there's a reason to argue.

"Places that take cash only" would be exactly the opposite situation. We're discussing cases where the merchant only accepts electronic payment—no cash. And it doesn't matter whether they post a sign saying "credit card only, no cash"—if a debt exists, you can pay it with legal tender. Even if they had your signature on a written contract, to refuse your offer to pay in full in legal tender would amount to forgiving the debt. They can blacklist you for it, but they can't legally claim that you still owe them anything. If a merchant doesn't want to deal with cash at all their only option is to avoid giving customers anything on credit, even short-term credit such as one incurs at a restaurant.

That is what legal tender is: a payment method of last resort which can be used to settle any debt, regardless of any prior agreement you may have made to pay by a different method.

That is the legal situation, more or less. As for the morality of the subject, I perceive legal tender as a bit of a grey area: I disagree with the current political methods but also think that the situation would not be significantly different if limited to legitimate (voluntary) means. On the one hand, legal tender laws are being imposed on the merchant by force, and a customer or party to a contract who agreed to pay in one form should not attempt to escape that voluntarily accepted obligation—I consider that contract-breaking and tantamount to theft. On the other hand, it would not be unreasonable for a court charged with resolving such disputes to impose the condition that the plaintiff must agree to accept some standard form of compensation as a condition of receiving the court's assistance, rather than the specific property in dispute. Some cases would be impossible to resolve without that constraint; the defendant may not even have the disputed property. On the other other hand, the government's courts claim a monopoly on arbitrating such disputes, which means any conditions they impose are at least partly based on force. If you don't agree to their conditions you have nowhere else to turn.

Comment Re:Robots will continue to win: What do we do (Score 1) 369

Yes, and I admitted it's flawed. But the flaws you point to don't nullify the conclusion they just require complications. Has your physics teacher ever mentioned the frictionless surface, or the massless point. These don't exist either. Nor does a maxwell's demon. but all provide insight. Don't get bogged in the weeds.

Comment Re:Robots will continue to win: What do we do (Score 2) 369

I'm going to get yelled at for posting this but there's this science fiction short story called "manna" by marshall brain. For the record I'm not marshall brain. In fact the story is rather poorly written. But it does contain a brilliant insight on this problem so I recommend it in the same way would recommend the poorly written but insightful science fiction of the 40s, 50s, 60s. A must read.

SO anyhow getting back on track here. These robots would not be used if caused the company to make less money or to produce fewer products. therefore someone is profiting from this. At the same time we just freed up some labor. Now if you have ever studied the debate between Hayak and Keynes economics you know that this presents a problem. If new higher paying jobs don't srping up to use that labor then one can enter a stalled economic situation where one hasn't increased the velocity or the total amount of money in circulation but has created dis-employment. the classic example is the 2 person village where the candle maker buys 2 loves of bread everyday from the baker, and baker buys 2 candles from thecandle maker. this cycle repeats every day. One day the baker decided to same some money to send to his sick mother, so he bought one candle. The next day the candlestick maker only had money to buy one loaf of bread. and the cycle now became one of a lower productivity. Everyone would like to be working at a higher level of productivity but there's no way to get there. The baker only has enough money to buy the resources he needs to make one loaf. He can't make 2 if he wanted to. Same for the candle maker. The a Mr Keynes comes to town and loans the baker enough money to make two loves and the candle stick maker enough money to make two candles. They then resume the 2 by 2 economy. In return Mr. Keynes, who was actually the tax man in disguise, gets more taxes in the long run.

Yes you can poke some holes in that reductionist example but the point is there are different nash equilubria in economines and you can through no fault of your own end up in a lousy one.

As we become more productive with robots one can either go to an economy where fewer people are employed and fewer people buy the now cheaper goods while wealth concentrates into the few people wiht enough capital to buy these expensive robots, or you could consider an increasingly socialist econonmy where we the increasing cheapness of goods lets us lead more procutive happy lives or lives with more leisure. It requires preventing excess capital accumualtion to achieve. This doesn't mean everyone has to be equal. But one can realistically consider a miniium basic income economy (e.g. finland is experimenting with this) where industrious people are free to earn more by working. Everyone can follow their hearts once the robots are able to make cheap buildings and grow cheap food and make cheap clothing, without it being a burden on the people who choose to work or create or invest.

Yes you can quibble, but if you extrapolate to infinite cheapness clearly I'm right. So ar what level of finite cheapness am I also mostly right?

Anyhow read marshall brains story to see how this can be made plausible.

Comment Re:Then why just 8 countries? (Score 1) 278

Ignoring the stench of racism in your comments:

*Then why did the US and UK pick different countries?
*Why is this only for certain airlines, and not for all airlines in that airport?
*Why is it only for certain airports, and not all airports in a given country (only one of two international airports in Morocco were mentioned. Its not that hard to get from Casablanca to Rabat).

Or we can take the obvious answer- its all bullshit, and you're a racist prick.

Comment Re:This is actually dangerous (Score 1) 307

My main objections to cable TV were the HUGE cost and massive commercial intrusions. Netflix solves both of those problems, while also providing commercial-free ala carte viewing that Hollywood refuses to provide.

Fair enough,

To put it bluntly, fuck Hollywood.

What do you dislike about Hollywood? You only listed complaints about cable companies.

Some common objections to Hollywood are that the studios apply region locking and that they encrypt their content. Netflix does those things too. They don't sell DVDs or blu-rays of their original series' at all. The use proprietary encryption. And they liberally use geoblocking and block proxies.

Slashdot Top Deals

MSDOS is not dead, it just smells that way. -- Henry Spencer