The ultimate goal will be to have the users dictate ALL the plot, getting rid of the writers. Next, CGI to replace all the human actors. Computer-generated music. The studios will be counting the money they save.
Unfortunately for them, this will go the way of all technology, becoming so cheap that people can do the same at home, without the studios. Wanna see another 10 years of M*A*S*H - but no reruns? More new Star Trek - TOS? Spaceballs 2? Or best of all, more Firefly? Boot it up or share someone else's creations.
Heck, someone may even come up with some pr0n that has a half-decent plot.
As I pointed out, the manufacturer can feature not connecting to the internet as a security and reliability feature and charge more for it.
Facebook has to give it away because it's so shitty they can't charge for it. And advertisers are waking up to the fact that there is no such thing as truly targeted advertising - claims by Amazon, Facebook, and Google of "laser-like focus on targets" is so laughable that the only reason it's gotten this far is because the people who do the ad buys need to help perpetuate the myth or they'll be out of a job.
There's another problem with this scenario. As more and more consumer data is collected, such data is going to be worth less and less. That's how markets work. An over-saturation of supply will inevitably mean driving down prices, which will in turn cut down on the incentive to do this.
Yep. We're already over-saturated with internet advertising, which is why the historical cost-per-click on mainline digital news media has dropped by 85%, and there's no reason to think the decline won't continue.
It's the same as how in the end bad money drives good money out of circulation, even if the mechanism isn't the same.
When they're selling them for less than scrap value, their model breaks, because people will be buying them for the scrap value and they won't be able to subsidize the cost by profiting from your data. So there's a floor price below which they cannot drop.
And when their competitor says "We have a way more secure fridge that protects your personal information by never connecting to the internet" and it's the same price or even a bit more expensive, guess who gets the sale.
Do you seriously think a toaster with the necessary circuitry and software to connect will cost the same?
No, of course not. It will be free or much cheaper, which is why everyone will get them. The cost of the device will be made up in data collection, same as the business model of Facebook or Gmail. You get the service "free" and pay with your data.
1. Get all the free toasters you can
2.Sell to scrap dealer
3. PROFIT!
If they're free, I'll take every one I can get and make MY profit selling them for scrap. Which will be recycled into new free toasters that I can sell for scrap. Finally, a real use for the IoT.
And they'll not want it if they can sell an un-internet-connected toaster that costs less to make for more money because it's more secure. Given the choice, and the higher reliability of the simpler device, I'd pay a $2 premium for a non-internet toaster.
When toasters have to be connected to the internet to work, the idea of me buying a toaster is toast.
Besides, toasters are simple devices. My current toaster has "no user-serviceable parts" and was riveted shut. A drill fixed that, so I could repair it when crumbs caused it to malfunction when I shook it upside down to get out the last of them. I like my toasters dumb. If I wanted a smart toaster, I'd get a Cylon.
It was 16C yesterday and I was going around in shorts. All this means is that different people are comfortable with different temperatures. It also varies by activity level, and time of year. When you've been in -20c to -30c for a few months, a day at 0-3c you'll see people shedding their coats and hats to walk outside and enjoy the warm sunshine. Works just the opposite in summer too.
If you use it only for content that was allowed by their automated systems (which is what will happen, since everything is supposed to be automatically checked), so what? You're basically paying someone to help train your AI by finding the holes that the programmers couldn't find themselves.
Logic has been used to prove lots of things, like bees not being able to fly. That heavier things fall faster. That the earth is the center of the universe.
Proof is what counts. A theory that is not possible to be tested is worse than useless - it's a diversion, a waste of time.
BTW - it's not possible. There is absolutely no evidence, and it is the person who makes the extraordinary claim who has the burden of proof. What you have is an unsupported belief - same as any other religious belief.
...gays are now accusing straight people of homophobia for the simple matter of them being straight and not wanting to engage in relations with the same sex? That's right, if a guy refuses to suck off another guy, he's labeled as a bigot.
There's a huge difference between teaching facts from past history and perpetrating bs. Imagine how much better we'd be off if the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran had been consigned to the rust bucket of history. People would be discussing facts, not dogma.
If studying these texts was relegated to an understanding of the period THAT would inoculate people from stupid ideas by showing the harm they did, and how much better off society became when they were abandoned.
Instead we have the Taliban, the Christian Taliban, and every other curse of religion. People teaching that a woman must be subservient to men, that if her husband rapes her it's not really rape, that divorce is a pathway to hell, that abortion is murder and you have to try to give birth even if it's pretty much guaranteed both you and the fetus will die, that dancing is for loose women, who you're allowed to love, who you're allowed to marry, which women have to use the men's washroom (while forgetting that certain men would have to use the woman's washroom), that slavery is supported in the new testament, that women can't be priests or pastors, that apostates deserve death, that a believer may not marry an unbeliever, etc.
Religion is an enabler of tyrants through the millennia. It needs to die. People should act well towards one another because they care about each other, not because they want to earn brownie points with god.
When an idea is obviously broken, you will never convince a nut case that it's not true. They are, by definition, acting rationally. In other words, they are delusional. You will never, ever convince them. They must come to that realization themselves. Ignoring their ideas is better than arguing with them for the very reason you gave - they will think that we're working so hard to disprove it that there must be something there. You're just feeding into the delusion.
And no, it's not a win-win. What it proves is that you attack a minority, there are people who will make you rich. That's not a win-win - it's financially motivating bigots.
"Teach the controversy?" So we'll teach about flat earth theories? They're not worth the resources.
Abraham Lincoln had several opportunities to repeal slavery. The motivation was strategic - by emancipating the slaves, this would cripple cotton production as slaves fled to the north. Other countries had already abolished the slave trade - the US was slow on the uptake. Not something to be proud of.
Also, having the Queen of America as titular head of state HAS to be better than Trump. The Queen of Canada does her job well, even signing onto allowing Canada to be independent - hence the title Queen of Canada. It may be the same person, but that's just the way it works. Canada managed to get its' independence without a war.
Also, learn some science. People have known for ages - it was even proven in the 3rd century BC. It was because it was common knowledge that Isabella agreed to finance Columbus. Whether the earth was the center of the universe or not was irrelevant to Columbus' voyage.
It's pretty damn obvious for anyone who isn't blind. A distant ship becomes visible from the top down. That can only happen if the earth is a globe. Didn't they teach anything?
And this is why idiots who troll slashdot don't use real names. Discrimination is narrowly defined. Go look it up. There is nowhere any law that says you must accept sex from any person. Even wives are now allowed to charge their husbands with rape if there is no consent.
Except your theory that we're just a simulation has zero science behind it, just "sciency opinions" from credulous scientists who want it to be true. It's actually a religious belief, because we have to accept it on faith, because if it were true we would have no way to prove it. Atheists don't take such things on faith.
All you do when you challenge obviously broken ideas is give them credence, because people tend to think "well, if they're fighting the idea so hard instead of just ignoring it, there must be something there."
Remember the baker that refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? The couple should have just walked away and said "your loss." Instead, they made a huge stink, and crowdsourcing campaigns raised over $800,000 for the bakery owners - more than enough for them to retire.
As for what's good for society as a whole, that's for society to decide. That's why we have laws criminalizing hate speech, juvenile porn, etc. The first amendment only applies to attempts by government to impose censorship, and even there society and the courts have held that some restrictions are both reasonable and necessary.
Being a racist isn't illegal. Acting on those beliefs to deny people their rights is.
If some people aren't happy with being kicked out, they're certainly free to start their own site. Te first amendment only applies to government censorship. It doesn't mean others can't arbitrarily censor you. Free speech also means that platforms are free to reject whatever they want, whether it's terrorist videos or bronies.
Also, there are plenty of white groups that are recognized as being discriminated against. Including the biggest white group of all - white women.
Some people are going way past reasonable arguments in defending their stupidity. Just because you can make an argument for something doesn't mean it's a reasonable argument. cf. flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, Trump's explanations as to why his inauguration had more people than Obama's, Hillary trying to blame everyone except herself even though everyone knew the rules from the beginning - elections are won in the electoral college, not by the popular vote.
Google is coming for your transgender bathroom videos.
How is that SJW extremism? They're also coming for your cisgender bathroom videos. Dog whistle much?
They arrested the guy running the #CanadaCreep twitter account, laid some initial charges, and as the investigation expanded, re-arrested him and laid more charges.
One of my former bosses now owes me big time. Every guy was arguing in favour of making a web site that published "up-skirt" pictures, arguing that "it's not really porn." Turns out that voyeurism is a criminal offense, and so is publishing prurient content of under-age teenagers. The problem is that everyone is so eager to find any way to exploit the internet for a buck that the thinking is "how to get around the law" or "get as close to the edge as possible". And they were so excited about the idea that they practically jismed their pants in the conference room discussing it for several days, and how "it's not really, really illegal." WE had some nasty arguments about it.
It's actually funny how/. reports on censorship when they have their own censorship is implemented. Say one bad thing about Linux and your karma is reduced to bad.
Slashdot Mirror
The ultimate goal will be to have the users dictate ALL the plot, getting rid of the writers. Next, CGI to replace all the human actors. Computer-generated music. The studios will be counting the money they save.
Unfortunately for them, this will go the way of all technology, becoming so cheap that people can do the same at home, without the studios. Wanna see another 10 years of M*A*S*H - but no reruns? More new Star Trek - TOS? Spaceballs 2? Or best of all, more Firefly? Boot it up or share someone else's creations.
Heck, someone may even come up with some pr0n that has a half-decent plot.
But these iPhones you have to pay for up front - at retail prices (except for the discontinued models).
As I pointed out, the manufacturer can feature not connecting to the internet as a security and reliability feature and charge more for it.
Facebook has to give it away because it's so shitty they can't charge for it. And advertisers are waking up to the fact that there is no such thing as truly targeted advertising - claims by Amazon, Facebook, and Google of "laser-like focus on targets" is so laughable that the only reason it's gotten this far is because the people who do the ad buys need to help perpetuate the myth or they'll be out of a job.
There's another problem with this scenario. As more and more consumer data is collected, such data is going to be worth less and less. That's how markets work. An over-saturation of supply will inevitably mean driving down prices, which will in turn cut down on the incentive to do this.
Yep. We're already over-saturated with internet advertising, which is why the historical cost-per-click on mainline digital news media has dropped by 85%, and there's no reason to think the decline won't continue.
It's the same as how in the end bad money drives good money out of circulation, even if the mechanism isn't the same.
When they're selling them for less than scrap value, their model breaks, because people will be buying them for the scrap value and they won't be able to subsidize the cost by profiting from your data. So there's a floor price below which they cannot drop.
And when their competitor says "We have a way more secure fridge that protects your personal information by never connecting to the internet" and it's the same price or even a bit more expensive, guess who gets the sale.
For those who are a few decades behind the curve:
man less
"less is more."
Do you seriously think a toaster with the necessary circuitry and software to connect will cost the same?
No, of course not. It will be free or much cheaper, which is why everyone will get them. The cost of the device will be made up in data collection, same as the business model of Facebook or Gmail. You get the service "free" and pay with your data.
1. Get all the free toasters you can
2.Sell to scrap dealer
3. PROFIT!
If they're free, I'll take every one I can get and make MY profit selling them for scrap. Which will be recycled into new free toasters that I can sell for scrap. Finally, a real use for the IoT.
Why the fuck would you buy an electric toothbrush with bluetooth?
Because he's stupid. Mybe the app tells him which end to put the toothpaste on, and which body opening to insert it in?
And they'll not want it if they can sell an un-internet-connected toaster that costs less to make for more money because it's more secure. Given the choice, and the higher reliability of the simpler device, I'd pay a $2 premium for a non-internet toaster.
When toasters have to be connected to the internet to work, the idea of me buying a toaster is toast.
Besides, toasters are simple devices. My current toaster has "no user-serviceable parts" and was riveted shut. A drill fixed that, so I could repair it when crumbs caused it to malfunction when I shook it upside down to get out the last of them. I like my toasters dumb. If I wanted a smart toaster, I'd get a Cylon.
It was 16C yesterday and I was going around in shorts. All this means is that different people are comfortable with different temperatures. It also varies by activity level, and time of year. When you've been in -20c to -30c for a few months, a day at 0-3c you'll see people shedding their coats and hats to walk outside and enjoy the warm sunshine. Works just the opposite in summer too.
If you use it only for content that was allowed by their automated systems (which is what will happen, since everything is supposed to be automatically checked), so what? You're basically paying someone to help train your AI by finding the holes that the programmers couldn't find themselves.
They don't really have a choice. It's either improve it voluntarily, or by force of legislation.
Fuck Trump (C) (TM)
Everyone has my permission to use it as I am placing it in the public domain :-)
Logic has been used to prove lots of things, like bees not being able to fly. That heavier things fall faster. That the earth is the center of the universe.
Proof is what counts. A theory that is not possible to be tested is worse than useless - it's a diversion, a waste of time.
BTW - it's not possible. There is absolutely no evidence, and it is the person who makes the extraordinary claim who has the burden of proof. What you have is an unsupported belief - same as any other religious belief.
Idiot troll wrote:
...gays are now accusing straight people of homophobia for the simple matter of them being straight and not wanting to engage in relations with the same sex? That's right, if a guy refuses to suck off another guy, he's labeled as a bigot.
Quit making shit up.
There's a huge difference between teaching facts from past history and perpetrating bs. Imagine how much better we'd be off if the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran had been consigned to the rust bucket of history. People would be discussing facts, not dogma.
If studying these texts was relegated to an understanding of the period THAT would inoculate people from stupid ideas by showing the harm they did, and how much better off society became when they were abandoned.
Instead we have the Taliban, the Christian Taliban, and every other curse of religion. People teaching that a woman must be subservient to men, that if her husband rapes her it's not really rape, that divorce is a pathway to hell, that abortion is murder and you have to try to give birth even if it's pretty much guaranteed both you and the fetus will die, that dancing is for loose women, who you're allowed to love, who you're allowed to marry, which women have to use the men's washroom (while forgetting that certain men would have to use the woman's washroom), that slavery is supported in the new testament, that women can't be priests or pastors, that apostates deserve death, that a believer may not marry an unbeliever, etc.
Religion is an enabler of tyrants through the millennia. It needs to die. People should act well towards one another because they care about each other, not because they want to earn brownie points with god.
When an idea is obviously broken, you will never convince a nut case that it's not true. They are, by definition, acting rationally. In other words, they are delusional. You will never, ever convince them. They must come to that realization themselves. Ignoring their ideas is better than arguing with them for the very reason you gave - they will think that we're working so hard to disprove it that there must be something there. You're just feeding into the delusion.
And no, it's not a win-win. What it proves is that you attack a minority, there are people who will make you rich. That's not a win-win - it's financially motivating bigots.
"Teach the controversy?" So we'll teach about flat earth theories? They're not worth the resources.
Abraham Lincoln had several opportunities to repeal slavery. The motivation was strategic - by emancipating the slaves, this would cripple cotton production as slaves fled to the north. Other countries had already abolished the slave trade - the US was slow on the uptake. Not something to be proud of.
Also, having the Queen of America as titular head of state HAS to be better than Trump. The Queen of Canada does her job well, even signing onto allowing Canada to be independent - hence the title Queen of Canada. It may be the same person, but that's just the way it works. Canada managed to get its' independence without a war.
Also, learn some science. People have known for ages - it was even proven in the 3rd century BC. It was because it was common knowledge that Isabella agreed to finance Columbus. Whether the earth was the center of the universe or not was irrelevant to Columbus' voyage.
It's pretty damn obvious for anyone who isn't blind. A distant ship becomes visible from the top down. That can only happen if the earth is a globe. Didn't they teach anything?
And this is why idiots who troll slashdot don't use real names. Discrimination is narrowly defined. Go look it up. There is nowhere any law that says you must accept sex from any person. Even wives are now allowed to charge their husbands with rape if there is no consent.
Except your theory that we're just a simulation has zero science behind it, just "sciency opinions" from credulous scientists who want it to be true. It's actually a religious belief, because we have to accept it on faith, because if it were true we would have no way to prove it. Atheists don't take such things on faith.
All you do when you challenge obviously broken ideas is give them credence, because people tend to think "well, if they're fighting the idea so hard instead of just ignoring it, there must be something there."
Remember the baker that refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? The couple should have just walked away and said "your loss." Instead, they made a huge stink, and crowdsourcing campaigns raised over $800,000 for the bakery owners - more than enough for them to retire.
As for what's good for society as a whole, that's for society to decide. That's why we have laws criminalizing hate speech, juvenile porn, etc. The first amendment only applies to attempts by government to impose censorship, and even there society and the courts have held that some restrictions are both reasonable and necessary.
Being a racist isn't illegal. Acting on those beliefs to deny people their rights is.
If some people aren't happy with being kicked out, they're certainly free to start their own site. Te first amendment only applies to government censorship. It doesn't mean others can't arbitrarily censor you. Free speech also means that platforms are free to reject whatever they want, whether it's terrorist videos or bronies.
Also, there are plenty of white groups that are recognized as being discriminated against. Including the biggest white group of all - white women.
Some people are going way past reasonable arguments in defending their stupidity. Just because you can make an argument for something doesn't mean it's a reasonable argument. cf. flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, Trump's explanations as to why his inauguration had more people than Obama's, Hillary trying to blame everyone except herself even though everyone knew the rules from the beginning - elections are won in the electoral college, not by the popular vote.
Google is coming for your transgender bathroom videos.
How is that SJW extremism? They're also coming for your cisgender bathroom videos. Dog whistle much?
They arrested the guy running the #CanadaCreep twitter account, laid some initial charges, and as the investigation expanded, re-arrested him and laid more charges.
One of my former bosses now owes me big time. Every guy was arguing in favour of making a web site that published "up-skirt" pictures, arguing that "it's not really porn." Turns out that voyeurism is a criminal offense, and so is publishing prurient content of under-age teenagers. The problem is that everyone is so eager to find any way to exploit the internet for a buck that the thinking is "how to get around the law" or "get as close to the edge as possible". And they were so excited about the idea that they practically jismed their pants in the conference room discussing it for several days, and how "it's not really, really illegal." WE had some nasty arguments about it.
You owe me, Dima, Sanjay, etc.
It's actually funny how /. reports on censorship when they have their own censorship is implemented. Say one bad thing about Linux and your karma is reduced to bad.
That's not slashdot - that's the users.
There's a difference between logical argumentation and beyond all reasonable doubt.