You are assuming that the shovel will not exist without patents, and are discounting the value that could come from people being able to disassemble and modify their own shovels.
You use "left" and "right" in some idiotic way that nobody but your stupid fucking subgroup understands. The US has largely trended more authoritarian, and has been moving largely towards deregulation and propping up the already wealthy (occasionally through regulations intended to strangle potential competition). That would generally be considered moving to the economic right.
Of course they don't have to try their case in the court of public opinion. They are a defense contractor, which means they get all of that freedom that goes with private industry, without the drawbacks of a public customer base that can be shaped by said opinion.
I think you mean "yeah, fuck that on site part temporarily while my wife is dying." His wife would likely be dead before he even had the experience to be on-call.
Also, noticing quite a bit of ACs sucking corporate dick in this thread.
I think the problem is that we are having different conversations. My claim wasn't that it definitively increases efficiency, but that your assessment ignores how it could increase efficiency. Whether or not it actually does depends on way too many variables, and we don't have anywhere near enough information to make that assessment. That's why I just used really simple, easy numbers, because calculating the real scope is very complex.
ou, Yon the other hand, are focused on the single (and largely irrelevant) measure of how long the first part of the transaction (sending the order to the kitchen) takes.
It's relevant because that's the only part of the equation that CAN be improved by a kiosk, and the only part anyone is claiming does. I openly acknowledged the caveat about the other end of the transaction from the start, and said it's only a benefit when ordering is a bottleneck. And whether or not it is the bottleneck will vary greatly depending on time of day, from day to day, and location to location. But you keep insisting that it's not the bottleneck because the kitchen is typically the bottleneck during peak hours. However, not all hours are peak hours, and this isn't going to slow ordering down during peak hours, so that claim is irrelevant.
You, on the other hand, are focused on the single (and largely irrelevant) measure of how long the first part of the transaction (sending the order to the kitchen) takes. A kitchen during peak times quickly reaches its peak throughput limit, at which point it simply doesn't matter how quickly you're able to push orders back to them: the food will not come out any faster. This isn't particularly complicated.
Yes, I get that, and apparently so does Panera. They said that they've expanded their total manhours because more people are eating more food during the same period. Basically, they saw the problem you claimed and came to the obvious solution: a bigger kitchen.
And there you have it: as the saying goes, when you're carrying around a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I'm talking about a nail because TFA is about a nail. The kitchen keeping up with faster ordering is a different issue that will need a different set of solutions.
I do advocate for such laws, and for the military and intel budgets to be gutted so they be put to something useful.
As to the claim that spies do more harm than good, what do you base that upon?
One good source is this article. But there's also bay of pigs, MKULTRA, arming multiple opposing sides in Syria, countless instances of training and arming terrorists and the like so they can look cool catching them, and plenty of other disasters I can think of.
Considering that much of the conduct of spies isn't known until decades later, if at all, how can you possibly assert that claim?
Considering most people suck at their jobs, and spy agencies are often decades removed from actual consequences, how can you possibly expect anything BUT a disaster? Throw in the fact that very often, operations are state-corporate joint ventures that allow a near-complete escape of accountability, and there's no real hope of a net benefit.
You are also ignoring that with all the spy games, we're exposing people's data. The NSA has everything on everyone. China, Russia, and several criminal organization have undoubtedly infiltrated the NSA and will do so again. That means all of those scary groups also have everything on everyone, except maybe a step removed. From a data perspective, it would be more effective to bulldoze the NSA than to continue to fund them.
Now, is that an ironclad case for immediately axing our spies? No, but it certainly means that we shouldn't be giving them trust or the benefit of the doubt.
"Legal or not" should not be the only deciding factor in government policy. I'd rather we secure the everloving fuck out of all of our devices than leave known security vulnerabilities for spies to pick up. Spies usually do more harm than good anyway, and the world benefits far more from having digital security. I'd rather kneecap other countries spies than bolster our own.
Given your recent request for "compelling evidence," I'll wait for you to provide that for the above proposition. A dash of common sense would suggest it's quite the opposite: that the average person would rather spend the time they're waiting to get their food doing other things (talking, reading, thinking, etc.) rather than bumbling around on an ordering kiosk and thus lengthening their end-to-end time in the restaurant.
People order fast food largely because they want food fast. People can talk/read/think AFTER they've got out of line. 'Fast' is in the name.
Utterly apples and oranges -- in a retail store, your work with the kiosk doesn't kick off another capacity-limited workflow by others. Instead, the retailer outsources bagging to you as well, decreasing net efficiency even further.
Okay, then replace the scenario with a million kiosks and taking a microsecond more per transaction, since I've to go to the absurd extremes for you to grasp a simple point. The point is that more lines equals a higher maximum throughput, and kiosks allow more lines with fewer employees. I have retail software development experience, and line busting is a way of dealing with long lines, which people hate. Look, it's an easy mistake to make, only thinking of efficiency in one dimension, but it's not that hard of a concept, especially for a/.er. The gains are in breaking the problem into multiple threads.
Again, you're looking at this strictly from the perspective of the efficiency of the restaurant. In your example, to get a 50% increase in throughput, you're expending three times as much labor -- except the restaurant doesn't care because to it, the labor is now free. To the population of McDonalds patrons, ordering now takes twice as long as it did. Overall efficiency has gone down.
Yes, ordering takes twice as long, but assuming the same number of customers, you only have 2/3 of the wait because they are more lines. It's only a loss of efficiency if the patron considers ordering to be less preferable to waiting, or if there aren't enough customers to get the benefit of the extra lanes.
Or think of it in terms of normal checkout in a retail store. If I've got one world class badass clerk in one lane with a line of 100 people vs. 100 people with 20 lanes open, it doesn't matter if the people running the register are less efficient than the badass because they are able to split up the problem.
Exactly -- it isn't, because your food doesn't just immediately fly into your hands the instant you're done ordering. See my last post.
You haven't provided compelling evidence of that claim, and it's a different side of the equation, potentially subject to a different line of automation.
If it's less efficient for an individual purchase and more purchases are occurring, net inefficiency can't do anything but go up.
You are ignoring that more lanes allows the problem to be split up more. Let's say that a manned McDonalds has two lines, and that it takes one minute to get your order processed. Two lines, each line is delivering 60 orders per hour (OPH). That's a total of 120 OPH.
An automated McDonalds has six kiosks in the same place. Even if the customers took twice as long on average at two minutes, there would still be a 50% increase in OPH. Six kiosks, 30 OPH for each kiosk, for a total of 180 OPH.
This is assuming, however, that the bottleneck is in the ordering process. Kiosks aren't going to speed up anything if it's isn't the bottleneck. And of course, the numbers aren't supported to be representative of the actual numbers.
It's less efficient for an individual purchase, but if you can get more lines in the same space, you can get more purchases with more machines and more lines. Waiting in line is a waste of time.
And while that sure sounds like a sad story, it would be a rounding error compared to the benefits of breaking up a number of copyright monopolies, as well as adjusting laws to have a reasonable return of works to the public domain. Hell, your really sad story doesn't even come close to the amount of exploitation businesses do of creatives for "exposure" or something similar. There's way more abuse from big business than there is pirates.
Yes, the enemy has a clusterfuck on their hands if the W3C tell them to fuck off and do it themselves. That's what we want.
As for DRM being a fact of life I would say that no, piracy is the fact of life. Your 18+ years is green compared to the history of piracy, and there is no effective DRM in existence. Only security by obscurity. The fact is that the technology of the general purpose computer is fundamentally pro-copying, and the value of the general purpose computer vastly outweighs the value of the film industry. It doesn't matter if they give up or not, piracy will win. So we shouldn't humor those idiots, and should bash their skulls in with the cold hard facts about how computers fundamentally work.
Oh come on, obscurity is way more deadly than casual piracy.
And regarding plagiarism, the answer to that is to get rid of the exclusivity elements of copyright. If a musician can tell you the four different bands they cribbed for their new single, there's a decent chance they will. However, today, there are almost never explicit acknowledgements of those truths (unless the work is out of copyright), and giving that credit is a legal liability.
All these people whining about minimum wage increases causing more automation like it's a bad thing. You've all got it backwards. Human labor has been undervalued, so nobody bothered to put effort into being more efficient. If anything, this suggests that we need to raise wages globally so we'll actually quit wasting so much human effort.
If society acts like there is value in human labor, then businesses will be more likely to put effort into labor saving. However, if you can throw wage slave labor at all your problems, you won't make those improvements.
Blu-Ray and Netflix/Amazon 4K are getting ripped, as well as every broadcast and cable TV show. If everything you have is already more readily available from other sources of roughly equal quality, that would fall into "too obscure to be worth cracking." But if there is no exclusive content of note, there is no protection.
Given that copyright-supported creative industries employ millions of people, I think it's safe to assume that at least some of the benefit is because everyone isn't just free to let those people do all the work and then leech off the results.
Anybody that wants to pirate can pirate today. So, in practice, every is just free to let those people do all the work and then leech off the results. But that is beside the point, because your argument is just bad application of statistics. If you don't think that education and telecommunication aren't far larger factors in the number of works produced, you aren't living in reality. Human desire to create is just behind human desire to procreate. If you want to increase the amount of creation, give people a UBI. Will likely do a lot more than copyright ever has, especially since there isn't much data to support copyright other than number of works produced and strength of copyright both only moving in one direction throughout history.
But you are correct that the creative industry is largely structured around our current copyright laws. That in no way indicates that we couldn't have high creative output without copyright, just that the structure will be organized according to how the legal system directs the money. It's not a particular efficient method
Slashdot Mirror
You are assuming that the shovel will not exist without patents, and are discounting the value that could come from people being able to disassemble and modify their own shovels.
No, patents inhibit progress more than they promote it.
We should hold them both to the same standard: Sent on a rocket into the sun.
No, he's stupid. He just lacks the particular stupidity found in the Beltway Bubble.
You use "left" and "right" in some idiotic way that nobody but your stupid fucking subgroup understands. The US has largely trended more authoritarian, and has been moving largely towards deregulation and propping up the already wealthy (occasionally through regulations intended to strangle potential competition). That would generally be considered moving to the economic right.
That means that American robots can take over Switzerland's most valuable export: neutrality. Pretty easy for bots to best humans there.
Of course they don't have to try their case in the court of public opinion. They are a defense contractor, which means they get all of that freedom that goes with private industry, without the drawbacks of a public customer base that can be shaped by said opinion.
I think you mean "yeah, fuck that on site part temporarily while my wife is dying." His wife would likely be dead before he even had the experience to be on-call.
Also, noticing quite a bit of ACs sucking corporate dick in this thread.
Yeah, but the numbers suggest that incompetent, heartless HR is the much more likely scenario.
It's relevant because that's the only part of the equation that CAN be improved by a kiosk, and the only part anyone is claiming does. I openly acknowledged the caveat about the other end of the transaction from the start, and said it's only a benefit when ordering is a bottleneck. And whether or not it is the bottleneck will vary greatly depending on time of day, from day to day, and location to location. But you keep insisting that it's not the bottleneck because the kitchen is typically the bottleneck during peak hours. However, not all hours are peak hours, and this isn't going to slow ordering down during peak hours, so that claim is irrelevant.
Yes, I get that, and apparently so does Panera. They said that they've expanded their total manhours because more people are eating more food during the same period. Basically, they saw the problem you claimed and came to the obvious solution: a bigger kitchen.
I'm talking about a nail because TFA is about a nail. The kitchen keeping up with faster ordering is a different issue that will need a different set of solutions.
I do advocate for such laws, and for the military and intel budgets to be gutted so they be put to something useful.
One good source is this article. But there's also bay of pigs, MKULTRA, arming multiple opposing sides in Syria, countless instances of training and arming terrorists and the like so they can look cool catching them, and plenty of other disasters I can think of.
Considering most people suck at their jobs, and spy agencies are often decades removed from actual consequences, how can you possibly expect anything BUT a disaster? Throw in the fact that very often, operations are state-corporate joint ventures that allow a near-complete escape of accountability, and there's no real hope of a net benefit.
You are also ignoring that with all the spy games, we're exposing people's data. The NSA has everything on everyone. China, Russia, and several criminal organization have undoubtedly infiltrated the NSA and will do so again. That means all of those scary groups also have everything on everyone, except maybe a step removed. From a data perspective, it would be more effective to bulldoze the NSA than to continue to fund them.
Now, is that an ironclad case for immediately axing our spies? No, but it certainly means that we shouldn't be giving them trust or the benefit of the doubt.
"Legal or not" should not be the only deciding factor in government policy. I'd rather we secure the everloving fuck out of all of our devices than leave known security vulnerabilities for spies to pick up. Spies usually do more harm than good anyway, and the world benefits far more from having digital security. I'd rather kneecap other countries spies than bolster our own.
People order fast food largely because they want food fast. People can talk/read/think AFTER they've got out of line. 'Fast' is in the name.
Okay, then replace the scenario with a million kiosks and taking a microsecond more per transaction, since I've to go to the absurd extremes for you to grasp a simple point. The point is that more lines equals a higher maximum throughput, and kiosks allow more lines with fewer employees. I have retail software development experience, and line busting is a way of dealing with long lines, which people hate. Look, it's an easy mistake to make, only thinking of efficiency in one dimension, but it's not that hard of a concept, especially for a /.er. The gains are in breaking the problem into multiple threads.
Yes, ordering takes twice as long, but assuming the same number of customers, you only have 2/3 of the wait because they are more lines. It's only a loss of efficiency if the patron considers ordering to be less preferable to waiting, or if there aren't enough customers to get the benefit of the extra lanes.
Or think of it in terms of normal checkout in a retail store. If I've got one world class badass clerk in one lane with a line of 100 people vs. 100 people with 20 lanes open, it doesn't matter if the people running the register are less efficient than the badass because they are able to split up the problem.
You haven't provided compelling evidence of that claim, and it's a different side of the equation, potentially subject to a different line of automation.
You are ignoring that more lanes allows the problem to be split up more. Let's say that a manned McDonalds has two lines, and that it takes one minute to get your order processed. Two lines, each line is delivering 60 orders per hour (OPH). That's a total of 120 OPH.
An automated McDonalds has six kiosks in the same place. Even if the customers took twice as long on average at two minutes, there would still be a 50% increase in OPH. Six kiosks, 30 OPH for each kiosk, for a total of 180 OPH.
This is assuming, however, that the bottleneck is in the ordering process. Kiosks aren't going to speed up anything if it's isn't the bottleneck. And of course, the numbers aren't supported to be representative of the actual numbers.
It's less efficient for an individual purchase, but if you can get more lines in the same space, you can get more purchases with more machines and more lines. Waiting in line is a waste of time.
And while that sure sounds like a sad story, it would be a rounding error compared to the benefits of breaking up a number of copyright monopolies, as well as adjusting laws to have a reasonable return of works to the public domain. Hell, your really sad story doesn't even come close to the amount of exploitation businesses do of creatives for "exposure" or something similar. There's way more abuse from big business than there is pirates.
Yes, the enemy has a clusterfuck on their hands if the W3C tell them to fuck off and do it themselves. That's what we want.
As for DRM being a fact of life I would say that no, piracy is the fact of life. Your 18+ years is green compared to the history of piracy, and there is no effective DRM in existence. Only security by obscurity. The fact is that the technology of the general purpose computer is fundamentally pro-copying, and the value of the general purpose computer vastly outweighs the value of the film industry. It doesn't matter if they give up or not, piracy will win. So we shouldn't humor those idiots, and should bash their skulls in with the cold hard facts about how computers fundamentally work.
No, because pirates are often the best customers.
Oh come on, obscurity is way more deadly than casual piracy.
And regarding plagiarism, the answer to that is to get rid of the exclusivity elements of copyright. If a musician can tell you the four different bands they cribbed for their new single, there's a decent chance they will. However, today, there are almost never explicit acknowledgements of those truths (unless the work is out of copyright), and giving that credit is a legal liability.
All these people whining about minimum wage increases causing more automation like it's a bad thing. You've all got it backwards. Human labor has been undervalued, so nobody bothered to put effort into being more efficient. If anything, this suggests that we need to raise wages globally so we'll actually quit wasting so much human effort.
If society acts like there is value in human labor, then businesses will be more likely to put effort into labor saving. However, if you can throw wage slave labor at all your problems, you won't make those improvements.
If we are going with rolling stone metaphors, I'd call the pro-DRM side Sisyphus and be a lot more accurate.
Blu-Ray and Netflix/Amazon 4K are getting ripped, as well as every broadcast and cable TV show. If everything you have is already more readily available from other sources of roughly equal quality, that would fall into "too obscure to be worth cracking." But if there is no exclusive content of note, there is no protection.
Anybody that wants to pirate can pirate today. So, in practice, every is just free to let those people do all the work and then leech off the results. But that is beside the point, because your argument is just bad application of statistics. If you don't think that education and telecommunication aren't far larger factors in the number of works produced, you aren't living in reality. Human desire to create is just behind human desire to procreate. If you want to increase the amount of creation, give people a UBI. Will likely do a lot more than copyright ever has, especially since there isn't much data to support copyright other than number of works produced and strength of copyright both only moving in one direction throughout history.
But you are correct that the creative industry is largely structured around our current copyright laws. That in no way indicates that we couldn't have high creative output without copyright, just that the structure will be organized according to how the legal system directs the money. It's not a particular efficient method