Wait for competitors to leave market because it is not profitable.
Raise prices to gouge customers.
No-one can or will re-enter the market because at that point you can just lower your prices again. As it actually takes investment to enter a market, the immediate undercutting by you will blow them out of the water.
maybe you missed the part where the O'Neillian dream died? Communications satelites are a dying breed. SpaceX will be launching a spy satelite, but they're pinning their hopes on space tourism, just like the suborbitals.
Ya know, I really don't think that is the case at all. I think generals look at a heavily defended area and say "shit, we can't attack that cause we'll lose". Maybe now and then some bright spark comes to them and suggests a way in which they might be able to attack an entrenched force, but that's the exception not the rule.
Well ya know, it's not exactly easy to get tension across in a Slashdot post. I was simply trying to illustrate that having a killbot doesn't mean you get to sip champaign from the comfort of an air conditioned tent.
Oh fucking please. I'm sorry, I've been very polite up to this point but I really have to ask if you have any idea what you are talking about. Voters won't even know the names of the candidates. Not that it really matters cause the locations of the polls will not be revealed until election day! The elections are for the benefit of the west to justify the US installing a puppet government, it's that simple.
The French and Poles killed "callaborators" too ya know. They want all the foreigners out of their country, I can't say I blame em. The US should simply pull out and mind its own business. It's not your country, it's their country.
Wow, you are aware of the huge assumption you're making right? You're assuming that I actually think the war in Iraq is remotely legitimate. You shouldn't be there. You shouldn't attacked another soveriegn nation, and now you're saying that the world should tolerate your development of weapons which will make it easier to do this again? I agree with you comparing WWII to the war in Iraq but not the way you're doing so. The US is the aggressor here. The "insurgents", as you put it, are the much like the few polish and french rebels who actually tried to defend their country from the german invaders.
No, the only way to stop an aggressor is to cut him off at the knees. Unfortunately no-one gives a shit about Iraq.
It would go down on the side with the robots, it wouldn't go down on the side without the robots.
Even in the case where both sides have robots it's a really bad thing, because wars are the instruments of oppression. If my country doesn't like the religious beliefs of your country I can just send my robot army to stop your people practicing their beliefs. You can fight me with your robot army but sooner or later one of us will win and the end result will be the suppression of the loser's people.
Even leaving religion out of the equation it's the same thing. The people of my country have to waste resources to make robots so we can defend our resources from other countries with robots who want our resources.
When the only cost in going to war is the cost of making robots we're in for a world where everyone has an army and everything is just cause for going to war.
To the germany army the perfection of the tank was much the same as the development of robot armies are today. When the german army drove those tanks into Poland they did so because they knew they were technically superior to their enemy and could expect few to no casualties. That's exactly the situation we're discussing here. The Nazi party would have been a lot less effective if their neighbours had tanks.
Ya know, I hear what you're saying but really I don't think this implies a perfect war. What's the purpose of this fighting? If it's the "to maintain the structure of society" from 1984, yeah, sure, sounds good. But if you're actually talking about why we fight wars it is to control some territory, and the people or resources in it. So if there's a big oil field and you want to keep control of it so only your country can dig up the oil, you'd send in your robots and blow up the enemy's tankers. Then you'd send in your tankers (and hopefully your robots wouldn't blow them up). The enemy would fight back by sending in their robots and that might work, but why would it work? Only because you didn't defend the position well enough. It's easier to defend a position than it is to attack a position. Building up a big perimeter that your enemy can't get around (or over) you can control territory. Once a significant robot force is in place to defend a position it can stay there indefinitely. Especially if what you are defending is the fuel for the robots.
So you're sitting safely in the bunker in the middle of friendly territory driving your killbot around out there at the front when suddenly you lose signal contact. Reports start coming in that the enemy is jamming communications. What to do? Hmm, guess we're gunna have to send in the real soldier right? Nah, you're commander orders you to kit up, hike out to the front and get a line of sight on your killbot. 10 minutes later you're on the top of a grassy hill, face down in the dirt trying not to be seen and at the same time set up a laser link with your killbot. Once set up you've got the job of driving your killbot to find that jamming equipment and blasting it so your squad can get back online. This is harder than it sounds, after all you've gotta keep one eye on the screen (it would be a bit hard not to seeing as it is strapped to your head) and the other on your six so you can make a run for it if someone spots your forward position. Just another day in the new automated fighting brigade.
Well autonomous fighting robots are the ultimate democracy threatening tool arn't they? If I have the biggest robot army in the world (and factories to make more robots protected by my robot army and so on) then surely I am king of the world. I can ban some religion I don't like (say, vegetarianism) and my robot army will hunt out anyone who is practicing it and kill em. No-one can stop me cause I've got my army and I'll destroy anyone who tries to make an army bigger than mine.
Yep, I remember as a kid I had a radio controlled car and one day it just decided that it didn't want to do burnouts in the dirt anymore. At first I thought it was just the battery had gone dead, but then it jumped into the air and tried to kill me! Oh wait, that never happened.
Gotta love the way geeks are just as capable of acting ignorantly to new technology as the rest of society.
Somehow, I have this feeling that anything which reduces the amount of outrage at a war is a bad thing. Why? Cause wars are bad things. Why? Cause killing people is a bad thing. Why? Well, I don't think anyone knows the answer to that. It's just a given.
I agree, and it really was a stupid statement, but is it really that hard to make a selection of new release movies that you wanna watch tomorrow before you go to bed? You could set your vPod (iPodV, ivPod?) to download trailers every day and you could watch them and select which one you want to purchase with the press of a button. It seems to be a valued model for PVR users, so why not movie watchers? Besides which, there's a vast number of people already doing this model, although unlawfully, and they seem to value it (so much so they are willing to run the risk of the copying protectorate's jackboots).
So you're suggesting that someone just happened to compile a kernel perfectly for their application and distribute it with an offer to supply the source and they can pass on the offer as a third party? Well I suppose anything is possible.
Well there was a laser involved. You know it's gunna explode if there's a laser involved. If the rest of that movie had been as interesting as the first 5 minutes it might have been a cult classic with geeks. Now there's a movie that would be worth watching: physics genius invents ground breaking technology, world is transformed as a result. Of course, you'd need some freakin' master of a director to make it even remotely interesting.
In that kind of environment there's no more incentive to create a better algorithm than there is to create a crappy algorithm. Say you spend $x to create a new fast algorithm. Now say there are n people who want a product based on this algorithm. You're going to have to charge at least $x/n to each person to cover your costs. Now say after selling your product to s people a competitor enters the market by reverse engineering your product, in the process spending some $y. They can now sell their product at $y/(n-s). If that amount is less than the amount you're selling it at everyone will buy it from the new competitor instead of you.
Big deal? Well obviously before spending $x you're going to think through this possibility and opt to release a product with a crappy algorithm instead. As the n people who want the product have no-one else to buy it from they'll happily buy the product with the crappy algorithm. A competitor can enter the market also but only with an equally crappy algorithm. If they decide to make a better algorithm the above applies to them just as much as it applies to you.
Now consider if we had a fair and sensible patent system in place. You could spend $x to develop a good algorithm safe in the knowledge that you and you alone will be able to commercially exploit that algorithm for some fixed period of time. After that period of time has expired you will have recuperated your investment and can compete on price without making a loss. In fact, as any competitor who enters the market will have to spend $y to reverse engineer your design, you can easily beat them on price (as theoretically you could change $0, this being software and all).
Slashdot Mirror
And this is different to being employed how?
I guess you've never been to WalMart. They've only been in court 6 or 7 times for price dumping.
No-one can or will re-enter the market because at that point you can just lower your prices again. As it actually takes investment to enter a market, the immediate undercutting by you will blow them out of the water.
maybe you missed the part where the O'Neillian dream died? Communications satelites are a dying breed. SpaceX will be launching a spy satelite, but they're pinning their hopes on space tourism, just like the suborbitals.
Ya know, I really don't think that is the case at all. I think generals look at a heavily defended area and say "shit, we can't attack that cause we'll lose". Maybe now and then some bright spark comes to them and suggests a way in which they might be able to attack an entrenched force, but that's the exception not the rule.
At least you don't get ads for american telcos that are completely useless to you. Oh wait, you probably do.
Well ya know, it's not exactly easy to get tension across in a Slashdot post. I was simply trying to illustrate that having a killbot doesn't mean you get to sip champaign from the comfort of an air conditioned tent.
Oh fucking please. I'm sorry, I've been very polite up to this point but I really have to ask if you have any idea what you are talking about. Voters won't even know the names of the candidates. Not that it really matters cause the locations of the polls will not be revealed until election day! The elections are for the benefit of the west to justify the US installing a puppet government, it's that simple.
The French and Poles killed "callaborators" too ya know. They want all the foreigners out of their country, I can't say I blame em. The US should simply pull out and mind its own business. It's not your country, it's their country.
No, the only way to stop an aggressor is to cut him off at the knees. Unfortunately no-one gives a shit about Iraq.
Even in the case where both sides have robots it's a really bad thing, because wars are the instruments of oppression. If my country doesn't like the religious beliefs of your country I can just send my robot army to stop your people practicing their beliefs. You can fight me with your robot army but sooner or later one of us will win and the end result will be the suppression of the loser's people.
Even leaving religion out of the equation it's the same thing. The people of my country have to waste resources to make robots so we can defend our resources from other countries with robots who want our resources.
When the only cost in going to war is the cost of making robots we're in for a world where everyone has an army and everything is just cause for going to war.
To the germany army the perfection of the tank was much the same as the development of robot armies are today. When the german army drove those tanks into Poland they did so because they knew they were technically superior to their enemy and could expect few to no casualties. That's exactly the situation we're discussing here. The Nazi party would have been a lot less effective if their neighbours had tanks.
whatever, freak.
Ya know, I hear what you're saying but really I don't think this implies a perfect war. What's the purpose of this fighting? If it's the "to maintain the structure of society" from 1984, yeah, sure, sounds good. But if you're actually talking about why we fight wars it is to control some territory, and the people or resources in it. So if there's a big oil field and you want to keep control of it so only your country can dig up the oil, you'd send in your robots and blow up the enemy's tankers. Then you'd send in your tankers (and hopefully your robots wouldn't blow them up). The enemy would fight back by sending in their robots and that might work, but why would it work? Only because you didn't defend the position well enough. It's easier to defend a position than it is to attack a position. Building up a big perimeter that your enemy can't get around (or over) you can control territory. Once a significant robot force is in place to defend a position it can stay there indefinitely. Especially if what you are defending is the fuel for the robots.
So you're sitting safely in the bunker in the middle of friendly territory driving your killbot around out there at the front when suddenly you lose signal contact. Reports start coming in that the enemy is jamming communications. What to do? Hmm, guess we're gunna have to send in the real soldier right? Nah, you're commander orders you to kit up, hike out to the front and get a line of sight on your killbot. 10 minutes later you're on the top of a grassy hill, face down in the dirt trying not to be seen and at the same time set up a laser link with your killbot. Once set up you've got the job of driving your killbot to find that jamming equipment and blasting it so your squad can get back online. This is harder than it sounds, after all you've gotta keep one eye on the screen (it would be a bit hard not to seeing as it is strapped to your head) and the other on your six so you can make a run for it if someone spots your forward position. Just another day in the new automated fighting brigade.
They're just small radio controlled tanks.
Well autonomous fighting robots are the ultimate democracy threatening tool arn't they? If I have the biggest robot army in the world (and factories to make more robots protected by my robot army and so on) then surely I am king of the world. I can ban some religion I don't like (say, vegetarianism) and my robot army will hunt out anyone who is practicing it and kill em. No-one can stop me cause I've got my army and I'll destroy anyone who tries to make an army bigger than mine.
Gotta love the way geeks are just as capable of acting ignorantly to new technology as the rest of society.
Somehow, I have this feeling that anything which reduces the amount of outrage at a war is a bad thing. Why? Cause wars are bad things. Why? Cause killing people is a bad thing. Why? Well, I don't think anyone knows the answer to that. It's just a given.
But hey, what do I know?
I agree, and it really was a stupid statement, but is it really that hard to make a selection of new release movies that you wanna watch tomorrow before you go to bed? You could set your vPod (iPodV, ivPod?) to download trailers every day and you could watch them and select which one you want to purchase with the press of a button. It seems to be a valued model for PVR users, so why not movie watchers? Besides which, there's a vast number of people already doing this model, although unlawfully, and they seem to value it (so much so they are willing to run the risk of the copying protectorate's jackboots).
So you're suggesting that someone just happened to compile a kernel perfectly for their application and distribute it with an offer to supply the source and they can pass on the offer as a third party? Well I suppose anything is possible.
Maybe you missed the part where I was advocating a fair patent system for algorithms that expire after a reasonable amount of time.
Well there was a laser involved. You know it's gunna explode if there's a laser involved. If the rest of that movie had been as interesting as the first 5 minutes it might have been a cult classic with geeks. Now there's a movie that would be worth watching: physics genius invents ground breaking technology, world is transformed as a result. Of course, you'd need some freakin' master of a director to make it even remotely interesting.
Big deal? Well obviously before spending $x you're going to think through this possibility and opt to release a product with a crappy algorithm instead. As the n people who want the product have no-one else to buy it from they'll happily buy the product with the crappy algorithm. A competitor can enter the market also but only with an equally crappy algorithm. If they decide to make a better algorithm the above applies to them just as much as it applies to you.
Now consider if we had a fair and sensible patent system in place. You could spend $x to develop a good algorithm safe in the knowledge that you and you alone will be able to commercially exploit that algorithm for some fixed period of time. After that period of time has expired you will have recuperated your investment and can compete on price without making a loss. In fact, as any competitor who enters the market will have to spend $y to reverse engineer your design, you can easily beat them on price (as theoretically you could change $0, this being software and all).