Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Machine learning? (Score 1) 184

on the issue of racism, no

i do not know many things about many topics. all of us are ignorant of many things

but i know enough about racism to understand that racists are not intelligent people. i am absolutely certain of that

oh i am certain you can find some mathematician who can do complex topological analysis in his head who is a fervent racist. there's also mathematicians who can't balance their checkbooks or know how to talk to girls. much like autism, extreme intelligence in a small domain does not often extend to basic social intelligence. on a site like slashdot, i am certain there are minds brilliant in small esoteric areas that are social morons, aspergers syndrome types

but anyone of average social development and of ordinary iq can easily spot the logical fallacies with racist "thinking"

and so you must be socially retarded to be a racist. i am certain of that to an absolute degree

there are certain beliefs, like creationism, antivaccine, racism, that to believe in those things *requires* you to be mentally deficient and socially stunted

if you are racist, you are a low intelligence individual. truth

Comment Re:Machine learning? (Score 1) 184

we're dealing with racists here

to believe in racism is to be a stupid person because to believe in it requires falling for a logical fallacy

if you don't understand that you are indeed a stupid person. objectively true. to hold a belief that requires low iq is to be a stupid person. objectively determined truth of low intelligence

i don't really give a shit what you think of me. because i am 100% correct here. racists are stupid people. you have to be a genuinely dumb, low iq, moron to believe the borken "if... then..." bullshit reasoning behind racist beliefs

Comment Re:I think they mean.... (Score 2) 206

Government is rather good at infrastructure. Companies are not so good at it. Why do you think Cable Companies are so bad in terms of customer support. Because they need to manage this infrastructure. That means they will keep the more profitable zones in better condition, or zones where they have some competition with. But in other areas where it is a profit loss zone, or they know customers don't have an alternative, they will just do the bare minimum. Government infrastructure seems to value the last mile user a bit more. Making sure they get their coverage as well.

Comment Re:What is the difference of these 2 positions? (Score 1) 147

Not necessarily.
Pay may be part of it. However there are other motivations. The degree of artistic control, Sometime a fancier title means you get more say on your ideas. Creative types are known to take positions for less pay where they have more control of their work.
Inclusions at the C level meetings. Sure meeting are boring, and most of us really don't want to be there. But it is sometimes nicer to get the information before it becomes a surprise, and have the power to shoot down stupid ideas earlier.
Sure Apple is a huge player. But Google may want Ives, or Samsung, or Sony. Perhaps some little known startup company will get him.

Comment Science is fine... Academic institutions are not (Score 5, Insightful) 444

"Publish or Perish", Degrees that require new original ideas, Strict hierarchy structure...
Academic institutions are culturally stuck in victorian times. So if you want to work up, get the choice projects and research, you need to publish. The more your publish, the higher the chances you will move up. Because there is so much published material, people don't read it much, so they found that they can get credit for half ass work.
Your name becomes your brand, so when you try to get a grant your name+institution you will work for will get you the grant money.
There isn't any reason why Say State University of New York Buffalo can't get a grant to study seismology, but chances are it will go to University of California Berkeley not because they will do a better job, but because of the name.
Finally institutions haven't learned how to deal with today's political climate with the attempt for breaking news. Every Hypothesis is sold to the public as a new Theory... Then if that Hypothesis is shown false (as it is common in science) then the media who may have a political slant will go and say see Science is Wrong again, just like our political stance has predicted!

Science for the most part is quite work, collaborating with like minded people, with checks and balances to try to filter out strong egos. But it has gone commercial so these checks and balances are weaken as strong egos will win out.

Comment Re:Wireless charging (Score 1) 41

Scale: charging your phone with 5 volts compared to a car at 120/220 volts.
Safety: that much current floating around means if a child wanders in the wrong area they are fried
Efficiency: If it is half efficient to charge our phones. No big deal its conscience makes up for the cost. But to power a car you will feel the extra cost. Besides you get a electric car because it is better for the environment and if we need to create extra coal plants to power these cars its carbon footprint gets bigger.
Reliability: a car goes threw a lot of stressed. Rain, snow, ice, wind, salt, bugs, animals nesting in it.

It isn't the same as making a wireless charger to charge a 2 ton cell phone.

Comment Re:it's not "slow and calculated torture" (Score 1) 743

Argentina was a special case where an investor rolled the dice on buying up all their debt and then somehow taking them to court in the US and winning a judgement that crippled them financially. Previous to that, Argentina has had a long track record of failing to pay back their debt going back decades without repercussion. So do most other countries outside of western europe. Spain and Greece are two of the biggest examples of what happens when you join a currency union and your economy is not in sync with the strongest players.

Comment Re:Windows 3.0 (Score 1) 387

There were a few things (GDI handles and suchlike) that had very small limits. Once you exhausted them, the system was basically unusable. There was a little program you could run that would show the number allocated vs allowed. By the time you'd launched one program, they were normally 60-90% gone.

Comment Re:Meanwhile OS/2 and Xenix existed (Score 1) 387

enough ram to run without swap file thrashing. Price was high as well

These two are related. OS/2 needed 16MB of RAM to be useable back when I had a 386 that couldn't take more than 5MB (1MB soldered onto the board, 4x1MB matched SIMMs). Windows NT had the same problem - NT4 needed 32MB as an absolute minimum when Windows 95 could happily run in 16 and unhappily run in 8 (and allegedly run in 4MB, but I tried that once and it really wasn't a good idea). The advantage that Windows NT had was that it used pretty much the same APIs as Windows 95 (except DirectX, until later), so the kinds of users who were willing to pay the extra costs could still run the same programs as the ones that weren't.

Comment Re:For me it's Windows NT 3.1 (Score 1) 387

I never ran 3.0 on a 386 to try that. On Windows 3.1 it wouldn't work, because the OS required either (286) protected mode or (386) enhanced mode. Running 3.0 on a 386, the DOS prompt would use VM86 mode (yes, x86 has had virtualisation support for a long time, but only for 16-bit programs). Windows 3.0 could run in real mode, so would work inside VM86 mode. In real mode, it didn't have access to VM86 mode (no nested virtualisation), so probably couldn't start again.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...