Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Who is this for? (Score 1) 110

by CastrTroy (#48669015) Attached to: US Internet Offers 10Gbps Fiber In Minneapolis
Exactly. My home router is only 100 Mbps because i bought it a few year back and that's all they had for a decent price. None of my computers have 10 Gbps network cards in them. A quick google shows that a 10 Gbps network card costs around $400. Mind you I could run 10 computers, each at 1 Gbps, but I don't see how I would possibly use such a connection at home. I don't think I could really saturate 1 Gbps connection for any appreciable length of time. Even on my 30 Mbps connection we can stream multiple videos at the same time.

Comment: Re:Well it's quite simple (Score 1) 113

by CastrTroy (#48668357) Attached to: How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us To Greater Harm
I really don't understand the hype that goes along with 3D printed guns. You can get safer (for the operator), longer lasting, more accurate guns with less expertise by making guns the old fashioned way. A gun is a good way to show off that a 3D printer can print some interesting things, but a 3D printer is probably the last piece of machinery you'd need if you wanted to create a good gun.

Comment: Re:Metadata (Score 1) 36

by CastrTroy (#48661313) Attached to: How a Wildfire Helped Spread the Hashtag
I don't know if many people remember this, but you used to (and probably still can) send and receive twitter messages by SMS. This was the original rule for limiting Twitter messages to 140 characters. That gave you enough space to send the twitter handle and the message within the 150 characters allowed by SMS. Before the days of smart phones and data plans people used to regularly send out tweets by sending text messages to 21212.

Comment: Re:false summary is false (Score 4, Informative) 35

by CastrTroy (#48651961) Attached to: Chromebook Gets "OK Google" and Intel's Easy Migration App
The Chromebook old sold the iPad in schools for 1 simple reason. Economics. The Chromebook costs $200 while the iPad costs $500. The Chromebook also has a lot of other nice thing going for it in the school environment, such as being able to actually type up a document on it without spending even more money to purchase a keyboard. That, and students can log into any Chromebook and instantly bring up their own account with their own files. In my kids' school, they no longer have a computer lab. When they need to use a computer to type up a document, they get one of the Chromebooks, log in, and start typing. It's very easy for the school because they don't need a Chromebook for every single student because they are so easily shared, and they don't have to worry about managing a bunch of Windows boxes with file servers and all the pain that goes along with that.

Comment: Re:Does the job still get done? (Score 1) 679

by CastrTroy (#48616641) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates
But that's just it. As you get more and more people on the social welfare system, you either have more and more people living as meagerly as possible because the jobs simply don't exist. You could up the amount of money you pay those on social welfare, so that they can actually enjoy their lives, but then you risk the workers jumping on to social welfare too early, and not being able to bring in enough tax money to support the social welfare system. If social welfare is too comfortable, nobody will want to work. If it's not comfortable enough, you'll have a lot of people who are on it because they have no other choice, and are therefore unhappy with their lives. These people will probably cause a lot of trouble.

Comment: Re:Good, we're not trying to create more work (Score 3, Interesting) 679

by CastrTroy (#48616397) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'll tell you what I'd do, man: two chicks at the same time, man.
Peter Gibbons: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd do two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I were a millionaire I could hook that up, too; 'cause chicks dig dudes with money.
Peter Gibbons: Well, not all chicks.
Lawrence: Well, the type of chicks that'd double up on a dude like me do.
Peter Gibbons: Good point.
Lawrence: Well, what about you now? What would you do?
Peter Gibbons: Besides two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Well, yeah.
Peter Gibbons: Nothing.
Lawrence: Nothing, huh?
Peter Gibbons: I would relax... I would sit on my ass all day... I would do nothing.
Lawrence: Well, you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Take a look at my cousin: he's broke, don't do shit.

This describes completely what most people would do if they had the option. Even myself, given the option that I could have a house, food, and all essential bills covered (heat, electricity, water), I would probably do pretty close to nothing. I probably wouldn't sit on the couch all day, but most of the time I definitely wouldn't be producing anything of value. Wake up, go for a bike ride in the morning, spend time with friends, play all those video games I've always wanted to play. I might take up hobbies and actually produce something, but I wouldn't be adherent to any kind of schedule and whether or not I could produce any item worth exchange for money.

Comment: Re:Does the job still get done? (Score 5, Interesting) 679

by CastrTroy (#48616315) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates
But who's going to do the 10% of the work that can't be done by machines? If the system is set up to distribute the wealth, and nobody has to work, who's going to do the 10% of the jobs that still require humans. Sure, some of them will be interesting jobs, and you might find people lining up to do them, just to keep their lives interesting. But there's still going to be jobs that nobody wants to do. These kinds of jobs exist already, but people do them because they need money, and they don't have a lot of other choices.

And that's at 10% of people working. Problems will become apparent in the current system way before that. Once you have 40-50% of people not working, it becomes essential that there's a system to redistribute the wealth such that people can live their lives. But then there's still 50% of people who need to work just to keep that going. And it's going to be very hard to convince people to go to work day in and day out when they can have a comfortable life doing whatever they please.

Comment: Re:Write-only languages (Score 1) 100

by CastrTroy (#48609851) Attached to: The Joker Behind the Signetics 25120 Write-Only Memory Chip Hoax
Commenting individual lines of code, is for the most part, a bad idea. Code should be clear enough, such that somebody well versed in the programming language knows what is going on without the help of comments. Commenting functions so that you know what they do is another matter entirely, and should be done. But if a language doesn't let you write clear enough such that you can understand it later without comments, I would highly suggest using another language. If you rely on comments to tell you what the code is doing, those comments are going to get out of sync with what the code is actually doing, and be more confusing than if they weren't there at all. Except in cases like using assembly language, where you can't write meaningful code, you really shouldn't be resorting to explaining what code is doing in comments.

Comment: Re:Yeah right. (Score 1) 99

by CastrTroy (#48609573) Attached to: Skype Unveils Preview of Live English-To-Spanish Translator
That video shows exactly why it doesn't work. I didn't even make it though half the video and found multiple errors in the English text, or what I assume were errors if she doesn't speak like a 3 year old. The guy broke out in laughter at how bad some of stuff comes out. And that's for simple conversation level sentences. If you picked a random person from the audience and got them to translate a random piece of text from a technical document, it would probably be 10 times worse.

Comment: Re:Yeah right. (Score 1) 99

by CastrTroy (#48609475) Attached to: Skype Unveils Preview of Live English-To-Spanish Translator
I guess so. If I could effectively communicate with a Spanish speaking person who didn't speak English, then I would be quite impressed. They would hear my English speaking translated into Spanish, and I would hear their Spanish translated into English. I think the other problem is that if neither person speaks the other language, then nobody understands if the machine is saying the right thing. If we are discussing a product design, and I say it must be able to support 250 kg, and the machine translates that as 150 kg, there is no way for me to verify that the machine got it right. Even if the person on the other end repeated what the machine told them, it could conceivably translate the 150 kg they stated back to 250 kg which is what I originally said. Obviously this is a hypothetical situation, but it's just there to illustrate the point. It might work for casual conversation, but when understanding the meaning of the words is crucial, it's not something that I would really rely on.

Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.