Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Wrong about automation and profit (Score 3, Insightful) 128

The article carries echoes of the "profit is evil and government is good" mantra so popular lately.

that's a false dichotomy that only appeals to a simpleton

profit taking cannot occur without the stability and security established by government. likewise, government cannot exist without tapping into the profits it makes possible. government without the individual pursuit of capital is hell. and the social darwinistic pursuit of capital be damned the externalities is a simply another flavor of hell

it's just ignorance to imagine that capitalism and government are enemies. one does not exist without the other

Comment Re:Profit over safety (Score 1) 128

we're talking about nuclear

nuclear is great until something bad happens. and then the possibilities are so exceedingly horrendous that there's nothing insurance can effectively do to offset the damage. what's the going insurance rate on giving cancer to people for decades and rendering large swaths of land unlivable for generations?

insurance is only effective when the premiums paid cover the probability of damages possible. but the damages possible with nuclear are so stupefyingly huge that the insurance company would quickly go bankrupt instead of paying out

Comment Re:What's the next project? (Score 1) 46

if enigma was such a great system, it would have protected from or gracefully readjusted after such an obvious and easily foreseeable failure. that no one foresaw such an obvious failure or didn't have any contingency for the fucking obvious simply means that enigma was extremely brittle and therefore a weak system

and even though it was broken, the breaking remained classified *exactly because* the brittle weak system could be sold to countries that uk, usa wanted to spy on easily. so yes: you need to re-learn your history, moron

Comment Re:Iran is not trying to save money (Score 1) 409

who gives a fuck about netanyahu? if israel said russia is bullying ukraine would you automatically believe russia is being heroic? you base your opinion on the opposite of what netanyahu says? do you think?

and iraq 2003 is exactly what i am talking about: bush said they had nukes and american morons didn't think to look at actual facts and just trusted the lies. iran says they are not building nukes when they obviously have an advanced nuclear program. they're building it for energy? you believe that?

your braindead insistence on rejecting the fucking obvious about iran's pursuit of a bomb is EXACTLY the same as some moron braindead trusting gw bush about iraq in 2003. exactly the same moronic prejudice over actual facts. that's you. you blatantly disregarding obvious facts because of a prejudice. that's you on this topic 100%

it is not remotely possible to accept the very obvious basics of iran's nuclear program and conclude that they're not building a bomb. you're not a serious person. you are guided by gross prejudice, in spite of obvious facts, exactly like morons who wanted war with iraq in 2003

Comment Re:What's the next project? (Score 1) 46

you can't claim a system is excellent while at the same time enumerating its major failures. of course an inside man or inside knowledge can do major damage to any system, but a truly robust system would safeguard against user carelessness and there would be ways to identify sabotage or major breaches and adjust around the damage. enigma was a brittle system where all of the failures you list were inevitable and foreseeable. and no plans, or weak late plans, were made for the inevitable and foreseeable

Comment Re:alogrithms aren't racist (Score 2) 352

That said it is pretty obvious that the main proponents of voter laws are Republicans because they know it will benefit them in elections, and the main opponents of voter laws are democrats because they know it will not benefit them in elections.

Backwards. The Republicans know that the biggest source of bogus voter registrations, and the areas with the largest number of actively dead registered voters and turnout at polling places where the number of votes exceeds the eligible population, are in places where Democrat activists work the hardest to hold on to power. It's not that knowing people who vote are voting legally and only once isn't going to benefit Democrats, it's that such a process is counter to what liberal activist groups work so hard to put in place. Like huge efforts to get college students to register to vote where they go to school, but to also vote absentee in their home state. Stuff like that. When they pour so much work into it that it starts to show (like the thousands of bogus registrations routinely created by the former ACORN), you know they won't like having that work undone by basic truth-telling at the polling place.

If you're worried about people not knowing there's an election coming up, and not bothering to get an ID (really? you can't go to the doctor, fill a prescription, collect a welfare check, or much of ANYTHING else with already having an ID), then why not encourage the Democrats to apply the same level of effort they put into the shady practices described above, and focus it instead on getting that rare person who never sees a doctor, never gets a prescription, collects no government benefits of any kind, doesn't work (but whom you seem to suggest none the less are a large voting block) and, with YEARS to work with between elections ... just getting them an ID?

Comment Re:Iran is not trying to save money (Score 1) 409

you're not a serious person on this topic worthy of interaction if you don't think iran is building a bomb. they know exactly what they are doing and the "who me? this is just for energy" is part of the game. it's not meant to be taken seriously. oh sure some suburban sheltered doofus like yourself whose mental model of geopolitics is derived from disney movies might actually think iran's intent is innocent, but this merely serves to mark how naive and clueless you are, and that your "understanding" of the topic is zero

japan goes whaling just for research, right?

russia intervenes in ukraine just to defend russian minorities right?

what kind of gullible moron believes shallow lies about the fucking obvious?

Comment Re:Accepting Responsibility (Score 1) 352

I wouldn't go as far as to say they are saying that black people aren't smart enough to understand the situation

Sure they are. Because the only people who could possibly take actual offense at this would be those who, having it explained to them, still can't understand it. Those who are insisting that black people be offended by this are insisting that black people can't handle the simple information that would remove any perception of malice from the narrative.

Comment Re:Accepting Responsibility (Score 4, Insightful) 352

It's called an "apology" - did you skip that day in kindergarten?

When the apology is a completely over-wrought bit of silly nonsense rendered in response to gleeful press releases from the Big SJW industry (who desperately NEED there to be events like this, whipped hugely out of proportion, in order to have things to get sound angry about), then it's not an apology. It's a forced sacrifice on the alter of Political Correctness gone (ever more) insane. There's nothing to apologize for here, because nobody at Google sat down to create a racist process or racist results. People who can't mentally untangle the difference between intent and coincidence should just shut up ... except, they're all media darlings now, because it's fashionable to be completely irrational on that front, now.

If Google tagged me as "albino ape" or "yeti" or "Stay-Pufft Marshmallow Man" I'd think it was hilarious. Those manufacturing faux offense at this bit of completely benign nonsense are the real racists. They are the ones who are saying that black people aren't smart enough to understand the situation. As usual, the racist SJW condescension is the most actually offensive thing in the room.

Comment Re:alogrithms aren't racist (Score 5, Informative) 352

It isn't a racist outcome. It is the outcome of a flawed algorithm.

You're not paying attention. These days, outcomes that have nothing to do with intention, purpose, or simple transparent standards, but which happen to lean statistically towards results not in perfect balance with skin color as a function of population (though, only in one direction) ... the process must be considered racist. The whole "disparate impact" line of thinking is based on this. If you apply a standard (say, physical strength or attention to detail or quick problem solving, whatever) to people applying to work as, say, firefighters ... if (REGARDLESS of the mix of people who apply) you get more white people getting the jobs, then the standards must surely be racist, even if nobody can point to a single feature of those standards that can be identified as such. Outcomes now retro-actively re-invent the character of whoever sets a standard, and finds them to be a racist. Never mind that holding some particular group, based on their skin color, to some LOWER standard is actually racist, and incredibly condescending. But too bad: outcomes dictate racist-ness now, not policies, actions, purpose, motivation, or objective standards.

So, yeah. The algorithm, without having a single "racist" feature to it, can still be considered racist. Because that pleases the Big SJW industry.

It's the same thinking that says black people aren't smart enough to get a free photo ID from their state, and so laws requiring people to prove who they are when they're casting votes for the people who will govern all of us are, of course, labeled as racist by SJW's sitting in their Outrage Seminar meetings. It's hard to believe things have come that far, but they have.

Comment Re:Iran is not trying to save money (Score 1) 409

It's pretty hilarious and pathetic there are people who are so gullible in this world

geopolitics is not the same as saying hi to the new neighbors in a gated community and full of slightly more complicated motives than arranging play dates with other soccer moms. you are a rather sheltered and naive individual. you really should stop commenting on subject matter when you obviously don't have a good understanding of how nations behave in this world

you're well below serious interaction on this topic

Comment Re:Iran is not trying to save money (Score 1) 409

Well, you have to factor in the Iranian cultural mania for disagreeing with each other. The Shah couldn't keep them under his thumb, neither can the mullahs, who have their hands full disagreeing with each other.

From a tyrant's perspective Iran is ungovernable, which doesn't mean elements in the government don't give tyranny a go on a regular basis. It's an ideal setup for producing martyrs. The futility of cracking down means you have a little space to rake some muck before official anger overcomes reason.

Comment Re:Iran is not trying to save money (Score 1) 409

if you don't think iran is building a nuclear weapon you have reached a level of naive idiocy beyond contempt

i don't care if you think it is ok for them to build one, or not ok. it doesn't matter if you think they deserve a nuclear weapon or not

but they obviously are

if you think they aren't you are a ridiculous gullible fool and all i can do is wonder what other ignorant propaganda you blindly believe in laughable contrast to basic reality

Slashdot Top Deals

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Working...