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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:He's too close. (Score 1) 234

by Badass Coward (#28892829) Attached to: A.I. Developer Challenges Pro-Human Bias
If roads are more intelligent than people, then why do they need constant maintenance? Why aren't cockroaches stockpiling Twinkies for when there is a nuclear war that only they will survive? Cockroaches don't plan ahead because they don't know what's coming, Rainman never figured anything out that he hadn't memorized beforehand (imagine him doing an analogy), and some people have well-rounded intelligence and seem to be able to do ANYTHING they set their minds to while others are more focused (perhaps due to obsession, specialization, laziness, life's circumstances/opportunities, psychological issues, stupidity(dumbasses exist)...) - just because someone is good at one thing doesn't mean that he is intelligent. I don't see why anyone is confusing survival with intelligence. Whether or not something has a longer half-life doesn't imply greater intelligence. Intelligence simply means being able to figure out logical solutions to problems. I don't know why the author is trying redefine intelligence, which, as another poster pointed seems to have been quite trendy for quite some time.

Comment: This is not for Wikipedia to debate. (Score 1) 635

by Badass Coward (#28700549) Attached to: Wikipedia Debates Rorschach Censorship
ANYONE who wishes to publish this information on Wikipedia has the right to do so because the information is correct, legal to publish, and unbiased(political speech or a sales pitch). The only time that Wikipedia's super-editors should ever censor a contribution is when it could damage their reputation for trying to provide legitimate information. If people can remember to keep this in mind then we shouldn't have to have such pointless debates in the future. As far as the Rorschach test goes, I simply doubt that it is important enough to protect it from scrutiny. Vagina in a blender.

A formal parsing algorithm should not always be used. -- D. Gries

Working...