I've been in DOD buildings where people had iPhones... after they got a certified contractor to physically remove the camera sensors (and maybe the WiFi or bluetooth??). They were quite the status symbol, because you had to buy the device, and then be willing to and pay to cripple some functionality.
No no no, Enron had a lot of "related party transactions" (read: embezzling), where officers were making like 10 times what their Enron salary was from their business doing business with Enron.
But even in the same vein, Enron had practically no operating profit, not 1/3 of their stated operating profit. And they were claiming far bigger numbers.
This is bad, but Enron was... well, at least one jury has decided... more of a fraud than a company. Toshiba makes products and money
Well there you go, kill or replace that binary, or simply remove the call or change it's destination, no more tagging.
You realize that only select few (very few) North Koreans can access the internet. Those are exclusively in the cyberwar wing, so they knew about this anyway or so senior they love the regime because they're helping to rule it. No one else is really going to know about the watermarking.
The problem is the makefile is XML, which can be ordered without losing any information. The diff tool is likely line-by-line. Therefore, there are "conflicts" because the file is reordered separately on two machines.
for most of my actual shopping needs, it's the store brand that will win the battle for "which detergent is it gonna be?"
And you think that's not advertised? Everytime you buy a storebrand (1) you are at a fairly large chain, mom&pop cannot get storebrands and (2) the advertising won when it convinced you to go to Target instead of Walmart, or whatever.
I'm so special because I decided to buy the stuff that is advertised by the physical location I am shopping at, because they make the most on storebrand, as opposed to on TV is pretty freaking ignorant.
How exactly do the advertisers manage to design ads that will get through to GP who "doesn't watch broadcast television"?
Tons of ways. Product placements in movies and TV shows (for when the broadcast on Netflix). Slashvertisments. Generating news stories. Billboards on highways/buses/traincars. Astroturfing. Paid stuff to bloggers you respect. In store displays. In store placement on shelves. You're getting information somewhere. There.
I, like GP, don't tend to even notice ads off to the side
And those ads are now designed to me maximally effective when seen in your peripheral vision. Just like TV ads are designed to look good when TiVOing through them at SFF
your contention that they affect me significantly just doesn't seem to be borne out by how I actually purchase products.
Advertised products control what you buy, because even if you weren't affected, enough other people are that those people control what is profitable, and therefore mass-produced so you can get it.
It's weird -- I don't even know the brand names for most products. Seriously. I don't
I believe you. There's a whole segment of consumers like you. But that just means advertisements target the stores you go to. Either trying to drive you to a specific store, or make sure you "randomly" choose that brand within the store.. Something like that.
if I probably see only maybe 1 or 2% of the ads that most people see, I'm pretty certain that the advertisers aren't somehow magically able to affect me as much as they affect most people....
Advertising isn't black magic, it's convincing people to make choices. You're making just as many choices as everyone else. What makes you think that fewer inputs means that each of them is worth less?
. And as people get more used to it and filter it out, it becomes harder to manipulate them in general
There's no evidence that people are building a tolerance to advertising. Studies show, on the contrary, resisting an ad makes you more likely to succumb to the next one. And the better the next ad or the one you resist, the greater the effect.
In my tests, DDG returned the best results, then Bing, then Google. Which, honestly makes sense. Bing's results are better for the same reason Mac's are/were so much safer. Being #2, you get to avoid most of the effort because it goes into fucking up #1.
There are multiple fonts: a "math" font and a "japanese" font. The problem is it goes jjjjjjjmjjjjjj for (j)apanese and (m)ath. It's just some programmer who has used the math usage, but never the japanese useage assuming that codepoint was always mathy, as opposed to doing some sane handling of the case.
For example, growing pot: You might have a flower pot full, or you might have a 100 acre farm. Surely the maximum sentence should be fitting for the one using a huge farm to grow drugs.
You imply that the 100 acre farmer would get the maximum penalty, and the flower pot full would not (presumably, the minimum). In reality, the 100 acre farmer would go free for flipping on his buyer, the flower pot guy who insists on a jury trial, and the flower pot guy willing to deal gets the minimum sentence.
You want a maximum sentence that fits the multi-million dollar operation.
No, you want a different crime for that. Because too much prosecutor discretion is bad (except for with regards to mercy).
I can give an example, if you don't mind me running to greek. Imagine some program renders mathmatical symbols differently from text. Imagine that someone writes out, using unicode, the formula for the area of a circle. No problem, right? The pi is clearly a math symbol. But imagine the same thing if you were reading greek. And beyond that, imagine if all the greek you read though pi was being used in a mathematical sense.
I've taught older relatives how to tell a destination to their phone for GPS guidance. Until I tried that when I saw they could barely type, I didn't think it would work because I've never seen anyone use that feature. Then again, GPS navigation is the one thing that, because for some reason I cannot download local maps, they track you using regardless.
Okay, I shall try to rephrase the question. Please do keep in mind that we are talking about robots taking peoples' jobs and, in that light, wealth distribution.
Allow us to assume that a truly excellent 3D printer technology is invented in the not to distant future, such that it becomes the normal means by which most things are produced. Let us further assume that the inventors, not being idiots, patent their work. So, for 20 years, they control all the robots that produce whatever.
This kind of lead time will lead to a market force difficult to overtake. Let's consider that instead of selling the machines, they lease them for a long time (maybe forever) for a percentage of revenue . Among other things, they will own the machines that mass produce stuff, so assume that those machines are not allowed to produce other machines that 3d print stuff.
Now, this may not end up being a single firm, but let's assume that the companies involved are relatively small in number compared to the size of the planet's population.
How long into the future do you think that people will tolerate 1/2 of all the value being produced being taken by those who happened to either invent the machine or inherit from those who did.
I'm willing to grant that these mysterious machines more than double the output of a factory, so it's still better than the status quo without them. But how long until people's baseline expectations reset, and they just start refusing to pay?
Well, if you have sub-average braking, you know that. If the car in front of you has above-average braking?
You're talking about this incident alone. I'm responding to the question of whether a problem may exist as reflected by the number of accidents Google's cars have had..
3) The car in front of you has ABS and you do not (or just vastly superior braking.
4 - and what might be the case with the Google car) The car in front of you acts in such a way that it signals that it will keep going, then stops.
For instance, a car that accelerates, then stomps on the brakes is more likely to be rear-ended then one that just stomps on the breaks. See also, the "swoop and squat" technique used by people who intentionally engineer collisions for insurance.
Nah, FB makes money. That $60M was probably generated outside the US. Therefore it cannot* be brought home, and must be spent on foreign acquisitions.
* Of course it can be, companies are just betting if they accumulate enough outside-the-US wealth, they'll get another "bring it home" tax exemption/tax holiday.
Huh, the harvester combine is a late industrial revolution invention... one that brought the industrial revolution to farming. Far after it came to textiles and such.
I'm asking what the information revolution is supposed to mean... a term that, by-the-by predates 3dprinters, 6 axis cnc and reprogrammable robots on the floor.
The maker revolution (or whatever rapid prototyping means) seems like, once costs for scale normalize to traditional manufacturing, will obviously change things dramatically.
But still, please answer my question about whether you think in 300 years, people will accept inherited ownership of, say 50% of manufacturing means like that.
I said taxes were compatible with captialism, but not communism. And often unnecessary in socialism. But, you know, go on avoiding the issue.
"just because you're using a harvesting combine instead of 1000 day laborers... nothing has really changed."...
See, and in that case, nothing really has changed. I mean, on the surface, sure. But someone built those harvesting combines. So, it still takes a ton of people to do agriculture. That's like a direct "Wealth of Nations" example
3d printers (not the shitty plastic ones), cnc machines (been around for awhile but the five and six axis ones are game changers), dynamic desktop refineries, factory robots that can be reprogrammed in minutes without requiring to retool the entire assembly line... really a tediously long list of things that upsets the previous paradigm.
Well, one, those currently cost several orders of magnitude more than mass producing injected molded plastic. So you pay a price for that flexability in a real way. The ones that are cheaper when automated are often less flexable than human beings are.
But second, when technology evolves further, and that's no longer the case, that's the exact point that people are making about "robots taking all the menial jobs" and "the need to share this wealth". Look at it like this. Say, in 300 years. Are people really going to accept that JoeSchmo is worth whatever the future equivalent of 50 billion because his great-great-great-great-grandfather managed to buy one of the first best robots? And therefore, JoeSchmo has inherited like half the robot factories in America?
There's no reason to believe robots will be the first exception to the rule.
Of course there is. The other technologies you cited multiply the productivity of a human being. Robots allow the complete replacement of a human being. That is, non-robot output is O(N), N = number of humans employed. But there's no reason to expect robot-output not to be O(1), given a minimal level of humans to program them.
how would seven billion humans earn a living if not for all the technologies that created exponentially more jobs?
Well, leaving aside you're using population, not workforce, they're not now.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been in DOD buildings where people had iPhones... after they got a certified contractor to physically remove the camera sensors (and maybe the WiFi or bluetooth??). They were quite the status symbol, because you had to buy the device, and then be willing to and pay to cripple some functionality.
No no no, Enron had a lot of "related party transactions" (read: embezzling), where officers were making like 10 times what their Enron salary was from their business doing business with Enron.
But even in the same vein, Enron had practically no operating profit, not 1/3 of their stated operating profit. And they were claiming far bigger numbers.
This is bad, but Enron was... well, at least one jury has decided... more of a fraud than a company. Toshiba makes products and money
You realize that only select few (very few) North Koreans can access the internet. Those are exclusively in the cyberwar wing, so they knew about this anyway or so senior they love the regime because they're helping to rule it. No one else is really going to know about the watermarking.
The problem is the makefile is XML, which can be ordered without losing any information. The diff tool is likely line-by-line. Therefore, there are "conflicts" because the file is reordered separately on two machines.
And you think that's not advertised? Everytime you buy a storebrand (1) you are at a fairly large chain, mom&pop cannot get storebrands and (2) the advertising won when it convinced you to go to Target instead of Walmart, or whatever.
I'm so special because I decided to buy the stuff that is advertised by the physical location I am shopping at, because they make the most on storebrand, as opposed to on TV is pretty freaking ignorant.
Tons of ways. Product placements in movies and TV shows (for when the broadcast on Netflix). Slashvertisments. Generating news stories. Billboards on highways/buses/traincars. Astroturfing. Paid stuff to bloggers you respect. In store displays. In store placement on shelves. You're getting information somewhere. There.
And those ads are now designed to me maximally effective when seen in your peripheral vision. Just like TV ads are designed to look good when TiVOing through them at SFF
Advertised products control what you buy, because even if you weren't affected, enough other people are that those people control what is profitable, and therefore mass-produced so you can get it.
I believe you. There's a whole segment of consumers like you. But that just means advertisements target the stores you go to. Either trying to drive you to a specific store, or make sure you "randomly" choose that brand within the store.. Something like that.
Advertising isn't black magic, it's convincing people to make choices. You're making just as many choices as everyone else. What makes you think that fewer inputs means that each of them is worth less?
There's no evidence that people are building a tolerance to advertising. Studies show, on the contrary, resisting an ad makes you more likely to succumb to the next one. And the better the next ad or the one you resist, the greater the effect.
In my tests, DDG returned the best results, then Bing, then Google. Which, honestly makes sense. Bing's results are better for the same reason Mac's are/were so much safer. Being #2, you get to avoid most of the effort because it goes into fucking up #1.
There are multiple fonts: a "math" font and a "japanese" font. The problem is it goes jjjjjjjmjjjjjj for (j)apanese and (m)ath. It's just some programmer who has used the math usage, but never the japanese useage assuming that codepoint was always mathy, as opposed to doing some sane handling of the case.
You imply that the 100 acre farmer would get the maximum penalty, and the flower pot full would not (presumably, the minimum). In reality, the 100 acre farmer would go free for flipping on his buyer, the flower pot guy who insists on a jury trial, and the flower pot guy willing to deal gets the minimum sentence.
No, you want a different crime for that. Because too much prosecutor discretion is bad (except for with regards to mercy).
I've liked that form response for a while. It tragecially now looks out date. To wit:
is no longer an acceptable objection.
I can give an example, if you don't mind me running to greek. Imagine some program renders mathmatical symbols differently from text. Imagine that someone writes out, using unicode, the formula for the area of a circle. No problem, right? The pi is clearly a math symbol. But imagine the same thing if you were reading greek. And beyond that, imagine if all the greek you read though pi was being used in a mathematical sense.
FFS, just bring dollars. You know who doesn't accept dollars? Cause I don't. Europe, Asia, whereever.
If it never visits ant of the sames sites, and that pattern is known, isn't that exploitable information?
I've taught older relatives how to tell a destination to their phone for GPS guidance. Until I tried that when I saw they could barely type, I didn't think it would work because I've never seen anyone use that feature. Then again, GPS navigation is the one thing that, because for some reason I cannot download local maps, they track you using regardless.
MS's V 5.1 voice recognition was shipped with XP (sp2). V8 came with Vista. Both were pretty good, and thye was client based, not cloud based.
Okay, I shall try to rephrase the question. Please do keep in mind that we are talking about robots taking peoples' jobs and, in that light, wealth distribution.
Allow us to assume that a truly excellent 3D printer technology is invented in the not to distant future, such that it becomes the normal means by which most things are produced. Let us further assume that the inventors, not being idiots, patent their work. So, for 20 years, they control all the robots that produce whatever.
This kind of lead time will lead to a market force difficult to overtake. Let's consider that instead of selling the machines, they lease them for a long time (maybe forever) for a percentage of revenue . Among other things, they will own the machines that mass produce stuff, so assume that those machines are not allowed to produce other machines that 3d print stuff.
Now, this may not end up being a single firm, but let's assume that the companies involved are relatively small in number compared to the size of the planet's population.
How long into the future do you think that people will tolerate 1/2 of all the value being produced being taken by those who happened to either invent the machine or inherit from those who did.
I'm willing to grant that these mysterious machines more than double the output of a factory, so it's still better than the status quo without them. But how long until people's baseline expectations reset, and they just start refusing to pay?
Well, if you have sub-average braking, you know that. If the car in front of you has above-average braking?
You're talking about this incident alone. I'm responding to the question of whether a problem may exist as reflected by the number of accidents Google's cars have had..
You don't need to have a monopoly to have anti-trust actions brought against you.
3) The car in front of you has ABS and you do not (or just vastly superior braking.
4 - and what might be the case with the Google car) The car in front of you acts in such a way that it signals that it will keep going, then stops.
For instance, a car that accelerates, then stomps on the brakes is more likely to be rear-ended then one that just stomps on the breaks. See also, the "swoop and squat" technique used by people who intentionally engineer collisions for insurance.
Nah, FB makes money. That $60M was probably generated outside the US. Therefore it cannot* be brought home, and must be spent on foreign acquisitions.
* Of course it can be, companies are just betting if they accumulate enough outside-the-US wealth, they'll get another "bring it home" tax exemption/tax holiday.
Huh, the harvester combine is a late industrial revolution invention... one that brought the industrial revolution to farming. Far after it came to textiles and such.
I'm asking what the information revolution is supposed to mean... a term that, by-the-by predates 3dprinters, 6 axis cnc and reprogrammable robots on the floor.
The maker revolution (or whatever rapid prototyping means) seems like, once costs for scale normalize to traditional manufacturing, will obviously change things dramatically.
But still, please answer my question about whether you think in 300 years, people will accept inherited ownership of, say 50% of manufacturing means like that.
That's exactly what the summary says.
And why the US government should get all anti-trust on them.
I said taxes were compatible with captialism, but not communism. And often unnecessary in socialism. But, you know, go on avoiding the issue.
See, and in that case, nothing really has changed. I mean, on the surface, sure. But someone built those harvesting combines. So, it still takes a ton of people to do agriculture. That's like a direct "Wealth of Nations" example
3d printers (not the shitty plastic ones), cnc machines (been around for awhile but the five and six axis ones are game changers), dynamic desktop refineries, factory robots that can be reprogrammed in minutes without requiring to retool the entire assembly line... really a tediously long list of things that upsets the previous paradigm.
Well, one, those currently cost several orders of magnitude more than mass producing injected molded plastic. So you pay a price for that flexability in a real way. The ones that are cheaper when automated are often less flexable than human beings are.
But second, when technology evolves further, and that's no longer the case, that's the exact point that people are making about "robots taking all the menial jobs" and "the need to share this wealth". Look at it like this. Say, in 300 years. Are people really going to accept that JoeSchmo is worth whatever the future equivalent of 50 billion because his great-great-great-great-grandfather managed to buy one of the first best robots? And therefore, JoeSchmo has inherited like half the robot factories in America?
Of course there is. The other technologies you cited multiply the productivity of a human being. Robots allow the complete replacement of a human being. That is, non-robot output is O(N), N = number of humans employed. But there's no reason to expect robot-output not to be O(1), given a minimal level of humans to program them.
Well, leaving aside you're using population, not workforce, they're not now.