How is that really any harder than say mugging someone outside the store now? Doesn't really seem to add much complication to push old lady over, grab her cart load it in yours.
Though I could see the phone theft as even easier to defend against. The door doesn't let you in unidentified. The place is already loaded to the brim with cameras... just make it refuse people wearing ski masks etc... (admitted the one problem will be that they absolutely need to make sure their cameras can detect black people's faces, because that's one snafu that will create some terrifying lawsuits).
Lets say there's 200 trolls Movie comes out September 1st.
Right now... 200 trolls post 1 star reviews in august, while 5 real people have seen the movie, so the ratio of 40:1 hate/love... Less real people go to see the movie because on the last day of august they see it, and if they do go they are expecting it to be disappointing, which may taint their enjoyment/excitement.
If the real reviews and the fake ones start at the same time... then you'll get say 1000 positive reviews, with the 200 fake ones dragging it down, less are discouraged and more go in. The big difference is it takes way more work to outyell the real reviews, when there's actually people who have seen the movie reviewing it.
I believe there's at least an option that can be set in which the owner see's all comments, and then manually approves ones liked. That would fully allow someone to do a "let me know what you want me to do", and they can look through approve a few hundred, and deny any pedo comments etc...
Well the 2 main perks that can be are helps them breed, and helps them not die. Generally attraction also evolves in the same way. Animals are attracted to the mates that are most likely to deliver and raise offspring, as the animals that were attracted to mates that sucked at birthing/raising's offspring died. Generally speaking "Nuisances" are terms we use for things that are minor forms of potentially deadly problems. Say for instance it being cold outside is a "Nuisance" to humans, we usually slap on a coat or go inside. For a homeless person, without access to warm clothing that needs to stay in cold weather for a long amount of time, it can turn deadly. Likewise fly bites are a nuisance individually, animals wish to avoid them, because either a swarm of them biting could lead to serious injury/death, or just 1 carrying a deadly disease or parasite.
and... if they don't, you still pocket or re-allocate the 10b you would have spent on developing a cure, collect your 6b a year for as long as it takes them to develop it. By the time they are making a profit from their cure, you are laughing your way to the bank in the 4 other treatment plans you've gotten yourself invovled in, laugh as you still are making 6x more profit per year than that sucker company that is slowly making cure money... the faster short game you've made leaves you a good chance to buy them out, and get them to stop killing golden geese.
I think the point is, if someone is 50, and catches a horrible painful disease. Is it more profitable to give a treatment that will let him live till 80 with really expensive monthly treatments. Or a 1 time cure that will let him live till 90. With the treatment option, he'll still need to go to the doctor for other sicknesses etc... in the meantime, actually they will probably be more frequent and more expensive patients for the normal colds/flu's etc... as the underlying sickness and the side effects from the medications will make them more vulnerable to everything else.
They don't have to collude with eachother, they just have to use common sense in a profit driven game theory. Lets say hypothetically treatment earns the company 6b a year. The cure would generate 20b for 1 year, 1b for every year after that, but render every companies treatment setting effectively dead. Making the cure will cost 10b and take 6 years. On a straight foward way, it makes sense that curing, isn't worth it, while yes the company that makes the cure would be the most profitable, it still hurts that company in the short run (IE the time and money spent developing the cure), Gives a brief high profit year and hurts all their competitors, but then kills their own golden goose. The most profitable option is still to stick with the treatment and hope everyone else also see's the same thing. For profit "competition will fix everything", more or less depends on companies saying "It's worth it to shoot myself in the foot, to shoot my competition in the leg", and more or less that is happening less and less.
Sounds to me more like a total lack of understanding of the word autopilot. Autopilot has been in planes for years. If you get on a plane and the pilot and co-pilot both are hanging out in first class drinking would we not all freak out? Pilots are paid around 130k a year, spend years training, and we've always known and expected them to be alert and focused on the skies even when the plane is on autopilot. Yet somehow when we put it on the ground we assume it means "no driver needed"
Reminds me of the super pac "co-ordination" things that were brought up all the time. IE a candidate would break the law if he sent an e-mail to the superpac saying "can you run some ads in floridia", but they can go on television and say "I hope my superpac runs ads in Florida".
it's true, but that also means we're down to a problem of the laws, and maybe free market in general can't fit with the times anymore. Old logic was if widgets cost me $2 to make, and I sell them for $40 a piece, someone else will start selling widgets for $20 forcing me to either drop my price or go out of business, then someone would likely also see the same thing and start selling them for $10.
Unfortunately the whole concept is a bit of a sham... in that the window of time between when you drop your price, and your competitor is forced to match you is short. You'll get one day of 6x your competitors sales for half his profits, then he matches you, and you are now at equal sales, with half profit, if you matched him, you'd have missed that one day of raking in crazy cash... but if no one choses to drop the profit, all sellers win.
In short what protects the buyers... is the possibility that someone is going to make a reckless mistake. Why that's coming to light right now.. is that fewer humans are involved, which means the odds of nobody making any mistakes, is a higher threat than ever. Also new contenders know they are price competing against bots, if you enter the market undercutting a bot, the other bots are going to price match you in milliseconds, no customers are even going to see the window of time where you were cheaper, everyone's going to be the same price always, and by dropping the price you just threw away everyone's profit for no benefit.
Basically an all robot competition market, is the same as say one company owning the patent for a drug which is the only option for many people to stay alive. it's still more profitable to sell it to 10 people for 1000x the manufacturing cost, than 500 people for 10x the manufacturing cost. As long as you don't have an emotional reason to care about people getting your product, over just maximizing your profit, there's no reason to expect the price to go down.
From my understanding... bitcoins throw an algorythm, and the first computer to crack the algorythm gets the coin right? Wouldn't it be feasible to do something like gene folding or something or similar with the same goal?
Even there though, those business models are also likely to die. Bitcoins divy up by how much work is done... you can mine 24/7 on a typical cpu setup of your mid line PC, and you'll be lucky to average 1 cent every 2-3 days per computer running it. In short... the time and effort to try and get people to download and use mining malware is also going to start reaching diminishing returns to the point that it isn't worth bothering with. If you can sucker the thousands of people needed to do your malware mining at a profitable rate, you probably could have just thrown a 1% chance of success ransom scam or something at them instead and made 10x more.
How long ago? There indeed was a point in time where one could work a minimum wage job part time, and afford housing, food, school books and tuition costs. We aren't in those days anymore. Now minimum wage alone barely covers housing and food... so a spare 15k a year for a public college, or 30k+ for private college, is a tad harder to come by.
of course it exists for a reason. Though for the most part it's the same as Touchscreens. Roughly put, touchscreens are 0 learning curve, but also the lowest top efficiancy speed. Mouse + keyboard is small learning curve, mid level speed with experience. Full keyboard speed takes a long time to learn, but damn of the things that I can do with just a keyboard, I fly through 10x faster.
It's worse than that... "Much of the labor will be "enhanced rather than replaced by machines". Does no one think what that means. When a job is enhanced, that means it can be done in less time, and with less people. So the position isn't struck from the roster of the company, but instead of 10 full time educated workers that sometimes need to work overtime, it can be done with 2 minimum wage workers.
We've already got whitehouse petitions, and several hundred activist sight petitions etc....
What have we learned from it? That nobody in power gives a damn about online petitions (probalby any petitions in general).
Generally you have to get an insane amount of signatures to get a response... typically that response is "We'll think about it".
If I'm not misunderstanding, the police can still search the phone, if they can find a way in. This seems to say they can't force you to put your finger on your phone, but it doesn't sound like they can't try to figure out the code on phones they are able to bring into evidence. Unless I'm mistaken, that still seems like they can take your phone, run your prints... and I'm sure in a few years they could easily have a device to quickly 3d print the fingerprints onto some form of glove or something.
Not really, The multiplication is bound to hit critical mass at 6. Because virtually every proporty is owned by one of the big 6, National Amusements, Disney, Newscorp, Time Warner, Sony, Comcast. If all 6 of those guys take their balls.. Netflix and amazon would have nothing to offer without selling their soul to some of the big 6. Hulu is technically already split ownership between Newscorp and Disney, So they'd either work together, or sell it to one or the other.
and yeah why would the ISP's mind this? It's a big club... and they make up most of it.
it would be good if the shows/categories worked better sure. The real problem is in practice it always turns into "pay for 250 things you don't want, to get the 1 you do".
You look at cable tv from an outside perspective and you see. Ok, so there's 5 channels for music. 1 channel for tech, 3 channels for news, 8 channels for sports, 1 for humor, one for just wildlife, 1 for medicine, one for mysteries etc...
You think, OK, well I like comedy and animals, so those are the 2 I want... "oh, ok so those 2 things are the mid tier, there's no way to pay for just those 2... instead the only way to get those 2 channels, is to subscribe to the mid tier package of 400 channels.
Likewise streaming is doing the same kind of crap... only more spread out. Odds are when we hit it we're inevitably going to find an even mixture of every genre, spread out between all 10+ networks. So if we say only want to keep up with sci-fi shows... that involves subscribing to 5 different networks, each that's gotten their hands on 1 major sci-fi show.
I have to agree with you in general though... I'd love an al - a - carte, system of say... 1000 unique hours for $2. (IE you can continue to rewatch shows you've already unlocked without paying, but seeing something new will require payment).
They already have tiers that more or less do it fairly... you can't share your password with 50 people, because they do limit how many streams you can run simultaneously. 2 households can easily hit that limit to the point where they are agervating eachother. In short the most password sharing really does, is let 2 households go for the price of 1. IMO alternative algorythms to say, hit people up when your already limited to 2-4 simultanious streams will more likely have false positives when say a 2 person household has 1 person that travels regularly for work etc...
is that even true though? ESPECIALLY on social media. Now if the topic were "men receive more abuse in online video games". Yes I'd fully expect men to be the majority, and trash talk goes out nonstop.
Facebook and twitter? I'd be very shocked if men had a strong numbers advantage there, I'd expect it to be pretty close on a "has an account" rate, and I'd really expect women to have a fairly strong majority in "post count" etc...
you are pretty right... youtube has been flooded with videos of
"Get free vbux, just go to this site, put in your account information, and you'll have millions of in game cash".
I've always been more borderline on the concept of whether something should be done like that (not agreeing with the one scumbag owning the TLD). It sucks that we can't really trust government, and that we have a lack of competition in ISPs. Personally I do think it should be easier for parents to block content for their children, and schools, workplaces etc... as well. Though i also do agree, with the collapse of net neutrality, and the tendency of "think of the children" legislation etc...
I wish it were feasible to make it easier to control the content on devices and networks you own, that wouldn't inevitably be turned into a "You can't do this on your own network that you pay the bill for".
we aren't talking about a law or prohibition... They aren't arguing that nobody should see porn, they simply can't afford the resources to seperate child and regular porn. To my knowledge they aren't making any attempts to ban porn nationally or internationally, they simply don't want to do it themselves. This isn't the equivelant of the government banning alchohol, it's more like walmart deciding they don't want to sell alcohol.
Prohibition forced people to the black market... tumblr may be making a bad business decision. but it isn't taking your rights away, it's telling you to go somewhere else.
I invested my life savings in lottery tickets... Won, now living in a great mansion. Don't know what's wrong with you guys... clearly if it worked for me it works for everyone!
Slashdot Mirror
How is that really any harder than say mugging someone outside the store now? Doesn't really seem to add much complication to push old lady over, grab her cart load it in yours. Though I could see the phone theft as even easier to defend against. The door doesn't let you in unidentified. The place is already loaded to the brim with cameras... just make it refuse people wearing ski masks etc... (admitted the one problem will be that they absolutely need to make sure their cameras can detect black people's faces, because that's one snafu that will create some terrifying lawsuits).
Well I'd also say it minimizes it more.
Lets say there's 200 trolls Movie comes out September 1st.
Right now... 200 trolls post 1 star reviews in august, while 5 real people have seen the movie, so the ratio of 40:1 hate/love... Less real people go to see the movie because on the last day of august they see it, and if they do go they are expecting it to be disappointing, which may taint their enjoyment/excitement.
If the real reviews and the fake ones start at the same time... then you'll get say 1000 positive reviews, with the 200 fake ones dragging it down, less are discouraged and more go in. The big difference is it takes way more work to outyell the real reviews, when there's actually people who have seen the movie reviewing it.
I believe there's at least an option that can be set in which the owner see's all comments, and then manually approves ones liked. That would fully allow someone to do a "let me know what you want me to do", and they can look through approve a few hundred, and deny any pedo comments etc...
Well the 2 main perks that can be are helps them breed, and helps them not die. Generally attraction also evolves in the same way. Animals are attracted to the mates that are most likely to deliver and raise offspring, as the animals that were attracted to mates that sucked at birthing/raising's offspring died. Generally speaking "Nuisances" are terms we use for things that are minor forms of potentially deadly problems. Say for instance it being cold outside is a "Nuisance" to humans, we usually slap on a coat or go inside. For a homeless person, without access to warm clothing that needs to stay in cold weather for a long amount of time, it can turn deadly. Likewise fly bites are a nuisance individually, animals wish to avoid them, because either a swarm of them biting could lead to serious injury/death, or just 1 carrying a deadly disease or parasite.
and... if they don't, you still pocket or re-allocate the 10b you would have spent on developing a cure, collect your 6b a year for as long as it takes them to develop it. By the time they are making a profit from their cure, you are laughing your way to the bank in the 4 other treatment plans you've gotten yourself invovled in, laugh as you still are making 6x more profit per year than that sucker company that is slowly making cure money... the faster short game you've made leaves you a good chance to buy them out, and get them to stop killing golden geese.
I think the point is, if someone is 50, and catches a horrible painful disease. Is it more profitable to give a treatment that will let him live till 80 with really expensive monthly treatments. Or a 1 time cure that will let him live till 90. With the treatment option, he'll still need to go to the doctor for other sicknesses etc... in the meantime, actually they will probably be more frequent and more expensive patients for the normal colds/flu's etc... as the underlying sickness and the side effects from the medications will make them more vulnerable to everything else.
They don't have to collude with eachother, they just have to use common sense in a profit driven game theory. Lets say hypothetically treatment earns the company 6b a year. The cure would generate 20b for 1 year, 1b for every year after that, but render every companies treatment setting effectively dead. Making the cure will cost 10b and take 6 years. On a straight foward way, it makes sense that curing, isn't worth it, while yes the company that makes the cure would be the most profitable, it still hurts that company in the short run (IE the time and money spent developing the cure), Gives a brief high profit year and hurts all their competitors, but then kills their own golden goose. The most profitable option is still to stick with the treatment and hope everyone else also see's the same thing. For profit "competition will fix everything", more or less depends on companies saying "It's worth it to shoot myself in the foot, to shoot my competition in the leg", and more or less that is happening less and less.
Sounds to me more like a total lack of understanding of the word autopilot. Autopilot has been in planes for years. If you get on a plane and the pilot and co-pilot both are hanging out in first class drinking would we not all freak out? Pilots are paid around 130k a year, spend years training, and we've always known and expected them to be alert and focused on the skies even when the plane is on autopilot. Yet somehow when we put it on the ground we assume it means "no driver needed"
Reminds me of the super pac "co-ordination" things that were brought up all the time. IE a candidate would break the law if he sent an e-mail to the superpac saying "can you run some ads in floridia", but they can go on television and say "I hope my superpac runs ads in Florida".
it's true, but that also means we're down to a problem of the laws, and maybe free market in general can't fit with the times anymore. Old logic was if widgets cost me $2 to make, and I sell them for $40 a piece, someone else will start selling widgets for $20 forcing me to either drop my price or go out of business, then someone would likely also see the same thing and start selling them for $10. Unfortunately the whole concept is a bit of a sham... in that the window of time between when you drop your price, and your competitor is forced to match you is short. You'll get one day of 6x your competitors sales for half his profits, then he matches you, and you are now at equal sales, with half profit, if you matched him, you'd have missed that one day of raking in crazy cash... but if no one choses to drop the profit, all sellers win. In short what protects the buyers... is the possibility that someone is going to make a reckless mistake. Why that's coming to light right now.. is that fewer humans are involved, which means the odds of nobody making any mistakes, is a higher threat than ever. Also new contenders know they are price competing against bots, if you enter the market undercutting a bot, the other bots are going to price match you in milliseconds, no customers are even going to see the window of time where you were cheaper, everyone's going to be the same price always, and by dropping the price you just threw away everyone's profit for no benefit. Basically an all robot competition market, is the same as say one company owning the patent for a drug which is the only option for many people to stay alive. it's still more profitable to sell it to 10 people for 1000x the manufacturing cost, than 500 people for 10x the manufacturing cost. As long as you don't have an emotional reason to care about people getting your product, over just maximizing your profit, there's no reason to expect the price to go down.
From my understanding... bitcoins throw an algorythm, and the first computer to crack the algorythm gets the coin right? Wouldn't it be feasible to do something like gene folding or something or similar with the same goal?
Even there though, those business models are also likely to die. Bitcoins divy up by how much work is done... you can mine 24/7 on a typical cpu setup of your mid line PC, and you'll be lucky to average 1 cent every 2-3 days per computer running it. In short... the time and effort to try and get people to download and use mining malware is also going to start reaching diminishing returns to the point that it isn't worth bothering with. If you can sucker the thousands of people needed to do your malware mining at a profitable rate, you probably could have just thrown a 1% chance of success ransom scam or something at them instead and made 10x more.
How long ago? There indeed was a point in time where one could work a minimum wage job part time, and afford housing, food, school books and tuition costs. We aren't in those days anymore. Now minimum wage alone barely covers housing and food... so a spare 15k a year for a public college, or 30k+ for private college, is a tad harder to come by.
of course it exists for a reason. Though for the most part it's the same as Touchscreens. Roughly put, touchscreens are 0 learning curve, but also the lowest top efficiancy speed. Mouse + keyboard is small learning curve, mid level speed with experience. Full keyboard speed takes a long time to learn, but damn of the things that I can do with just a keyboard, I fly through 10x faster.
It's worse than that... "Much of the labor will be "enhanced rather than replaced by machines". Does no one think what that means. When a job is enhanced, that means it can be done in less time, and with less people. So the position isn't struck from the roster of the company, but instead of 10 full time educated workers that sometimes need to work overtime, it can be done with 2 minimum wage workers.
We've already got whitehouse petitions, and several hundred activist sight petitions etc.... What have we learned from it? That nobody in power gives a damn about online petitions (probalby any petitions in general). Generally you have to get an insane amount of signatures to get a response... typically that response is "We'll think about it".
If I'm not misunderstanding, the police can still search the phone, if they can find a way in. This seems to say they can't force you to put your finger on your phone, but it doesn't sound like they can't try to figure out the code on phones they are able to bring into evidence. Unless I'm mistaken, that still seems like they can take your phone, run your prints... and I'm sure in a few years they could easily have a device to quickly 3d print the fingerprints onto some form of glove or something.
Not really, The multiplication is bound to hit critical mass at 6. Because virtually every proporty is owned by one of the big 6, National Amusements, Disney, Newscorp, Time Warner, Sony, Comcast. If all 6 of those guys take their balls.. Netflix and amazon would have nothing to offer without selling their soul to some of the big 6. Hulu is technically already split ownership between Newscorp and Disney, So they'd either work together, or sell it to one or the other. and yeah why would the ISP's mind this? It's a big club... and they make up most of it.
it would be good if the shows/categories worked better sure. The real problem is in practice it always turns into "pay for 250 things you don't want, to get the 1 you do". You look at cable tv from an outside perspective and you see. Ok, so there's 5 channels for music. 1 channel for tech, 3 channels for news, 8 channels for sports, 1 for humor, one for just wildlife, 1 for medicine, one for mysteries etc... You think, OK, well I like comedy and animals, so those are the 2 I want... "oh, ok so those 2 things are the mid tier, there's no way to pay for just those 2... instead the only way to get those 2 channels, is to subscribe to the mid tier package of 400 channels. Likewise streaming is doing the same kind of crap... only more spread out. Odds are when we hit it we're inevitably going to find an even mixture of every genre, spread out between all 10+ networks. So if we say only want to keep up with sci-fi shows... that involves subscribing to 5 different networks, each that's gotten their hands on 1 major sci-fi show. I have to agree with you in general though... I'd love an al - a - carte, system of say... 1000 unique hours for $2. (IE you can continue to rewatch shows you've already unlocked without paying, but seeing something new will require payment).
They already have tiers that more or less do it fairly... you can't share your password with 50 people, because they do limit how many streams you can run simultaneously. 2 households can easily hit that limit to the point where they are agervating eachother. In short the most password sharing really does, is let 2 households go for the price of 1. IMO alternative algorythms to say, hit people up when your already limited to 2-4 simultanious streams will more likely have false positives when say a 2 person household has 1 person that travels regularly for work etc...
is that even true though? ESPECIALLY on social media. Now if the topic were "men receive more abuse in online video games". Yes I'd fully expect men to be the majority, and trash talk goes out nonstop. Facebook and twitter? I'd be very shocked if men had a strong numbers advantage there, I'd expect it to be pretty close on a "has an account" rate, and I'd really expect women to have a fairly strong majority in "post count" etc...
you are pretty right... youtube has been flooded with videos of "Get free vbux, just go to this site, put in your account information, and you'll have millions of in game cash".
I've always been more borderline on the concept of whether something should be done like that (not agreeing with the one scumbag owning the TLD). It sucks that we can't really trust government, and that we have a lack of competition in ISPs. Personally I do think it should be easier for parents to block content for their children, and schools, workplaces etc... as well. Though i also do agree, with the collapse of net neutrality, and the tendency of "think of the children" legislation etc... I wish it were feasible to make it easier to control the content on devices and networks you own, that wouldn't inevitably be turned into a "You can't do this on your own network that you pay the bill for".
we aren't talking about a law or prohibition... They aren't arguing that nobody should see porn, they simply can't afford the resources to seperate child and regular porn. To my knowledge they aren't making any attempts to ban porn nationally or internationally, they simply don't want to do it themselves. This isn't the equivelant of the government banning alchohol, it's more like walmart deciding they don't want to sell alcohol. Prohibition forced people to the black market... tumblr may be making a bad business decision. but it isn't taking your rights away, it's telling you to go somewhere else.
I invested my life savings in lottery tickets... Won, now living in a great mansion. Don't know what's wrong with you guys... clearly if it worked for me it works for everyone!