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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Ride sharing? (Score 1) 139

by Daetrin (#48572905) Attached to: California Sues Uber Over Practices
Most sensible geeks get incensed when the government passes a law about "Doing X, but on a computer/the internet" or when a company tries to patent "Doing X, but on a computer/the internet". We quite rightly point out that there are already laws or patents covering the same thing and doing it on a computer or the internet doesn't make it magically special.

Well this is part of why the government sometimes keeps trying to pass "Doing X, but on the internet" laws. Because some jerk is always willing to try getting away with something and then when they get caught argue "but it was on the internet, so it doesn't count!"

Comment: Not quite... (Score 3, Insightful) 222

by Daetrin (#48568949) Attached to: Dad Makes His Kid Play Through All Video Game History In Chronological Order

Andy taught him about gaming by making him play and master all of the old video games and gaming systems in the exact order they were actually released.

Part of that sentence is definitely wrong and part of it is definitely misleading. Because he skipped straight from the Atari 2600 to the NES, and then to the Super NES, and then to the N64. No Coleco, no Genesis, etc. So not all the consoles, and from what i can tell not even all the games for each console. And i can't see any indication that they're being played strictly in order either.

So it's a heavily curated list of games, which is a good thing because the full list would be impossible to do, and it seems to be in strict chronological order in terms of consoles but only vague order within each generation.

Comment: Oh, _that_ asshole! (Score 1) 239

by Daetrin (#48523045) Attached to: Google Hopes To One Day Replace Gmail With Inbox
This from Jason Cornwell, who decided to "allow" us to write shorter emails by "allowing" us to use a tiny little non-resizable compose window in Gmail.

Okay, that's not 100% true. You can switch to "full-screen" mode, which enlarges it to a size that is neither all of the screen nor even just all of the window. But it does "kindly" grey out all the GUI elements that the "full-screen" window isn't covering up and disallows you from interacting with them without minimizing the window.

But i guess it make senses. If he can just make Gmail unappealing enough then of course we'll all switch to Inbox, right?

Comment: The writer doesn't get the Singularity either (Score 1) 455

*sigh* Someone doesn't understand the Singularity theory. Based on the title i'm guessing it's the professor, but since i can't actually read the article at work it's possible it's the Slashdot editor who conflated lack of AI with lack of Singularity.

The basic premise of the Singularity is that over historic time periods the rate of knowledge acquisition of the human race has increased at a geometric rate.

The reason this has happened is because acquiring knowledge allows us to develop tools that allows us to build upon the pre-existing knowledge to make new discovers that allow better tools, and so on. (Although it's far from a perfect simulation, anyone who's ever played Civilization or any similar strategy game should know that process by heart.)

There are two possible outcomes to this progression, either we hit some rate limiting factor sometime in the "near" future, or the rate of knowledge acquisition over time will approach a mathematical singularity, at which point we will be discovering things so fast that our current minds can not comprehend what will happen. Obviously proponents of the Singularity believe that it is the second possibility that will happen.

However the theory of the Singularity makes no prescriptions about _how_ we will obtain that rate of knowledge. Certainly Artificial Intelligence is one such way. However direct augmentation of our brains is another possibility. Whether that will be via cybernetic implants, biomedical alterations, genetic tinkering, or something else we haven't, and possibly can't, think of is impossible to say at this point.

Up until now of course tools have allowed us to indirectly augment out brains. Writing lets us record information. The internet lets us retrieve information. Now Watson helps us interpret that information. Yes Watson isn't doing anything, Watson is just a tool we use. But tools that help us accomplish things we couldn't before are exactly what moves us along the path towards the Singularity.

As has been pointed out, there was just recently news about replicating a worm's mind in a mechanical body. Yes it's very interesting, but no, it isn't a perfect recreation of an actual brain. But maybe when that paper gets scanned into Watson 2.0 it will make some connection to some other paper on artificial neurons or some such and Watson will let the authors know that they really ought to talk to each other. And boom, we're suddenly creating real artificial minds. Or maybe something else happens. The whole point is we don't know what the next step will be, we're just observing a trend.

If you want to argue against the Singularity you can't just pick a hole in the prospects for AI. You need to explain why the current trend in knowledge acquisition won't continue.

Comment: Re:Who cares about the lander? (Score 2) 337

by Daetrin (#48390711) Attached to: Philae's Batteries Have Drained; Comet Lander Sleeps
So sarcasm aside, it sounds like you're annoyed that people got diverted from talking about the science to discuss the politics of a shirt? In fact you were so concerned about the issue you decided to write a post diverting us from talking about the science to discuss the politics of discussing the politics of a shirt. After all, it's of dire importance we raise awareness about people trying to raise awareness about the shirt since none of the people complaining about it were kind enough to complain about it here first where we would be aware of it.

Well speech is free, and it's not like we can't discuss both issues (or all three issues?) And I am glad you care enough about justice in these kinds of social issues to fight for your beliefs!

Comment: This really is a serious problem (Score 4, Funny) 264

by Daetrin (#48326709) Attached to: We Are Running Out of Sand
Sand has a lot of uses but it's non-renewable. There's no way (yet) to manufacture it. If you mine the beaches you ruin the environment and end up with eyesores. The same thing happens if you go to your local desert and mine there. It is possible to strip mine a desert, take all the sand and sandstone, and then put a layer of sand back on top. That leaves the landscape looking mostly the same, albeit a bit lower in elevation than it was before, but it takes a _lot_ of work. I've heard of people doing massive underwater operations to strip mine the seabed of sand so that none of the easily visible above-water environments are damaged.

...wait, we are talking about Minecraft, right?

Comment: Re:Well (Score 1) 594

by Daetrin (#48301429) Attached to: Space Tourism Isn't Worth Dying For
Saying "if X were [easier/better/safer/whatever] we would already be doing X" is vastly overestimating human intelligence and insightfulness. We often fail to recognize the true value of certain inventions or techniques until well after their invention, and often choose to use non-optimal methods for what seemed like good reasons at the time.

A tongue-in-cheek but still insightful article about the subject (#1 and #3 are particularly relevant to this discussion.)
http://www.cracked.com/article...

Comment: That seems odd (Score 2) 154

by Daetrin (#48161239) Attached to: Scientists Find Rats Aren't Smarter Than Mice, and That's Important
"You might think that mice and rats would be basically the same when it comes to these kinds of things" [About training the two species]

It doesn't seem like it makes much sense to believe that rats and mice are different enough for one species to be measurably smarter than the other, but not to also believe that they're different enough to have different behavior patterns and responses to various stimuli.

Comment: Re:Phantom pain (Score 1) 30

by Daetrin (#48114217) Attached to: Prosthetic Hand Capable of Delivering Texture Sensations
Please don't take this wrong, but i took a quick look at your comment history and between that and what you've posted here you're sounding an awful lot like a friend i used to know. At first i thought she was just a little odd, but it turned out that she actually had some serious problems and some pretty bad stuff ended up happening because of it. If you really believe the things you're saying i think you should really consider talking to someone. I expect you'd be resistant to the idea of going to a psychiatrist, but perhaps you have friends or family you can discuss these concerns with?

And if i'm just feeding a troll... oh well.

Comment: Well duh (Score 4, Insightful) 30

by Daetrin (#48113451) Attached to: Prosthetic Hand Capable of Delivering Texture Sensations
"A new prosthetic system allows amputees to feel familiar sensations and also, somewhat unexpectedly, reduces their phantom pain."

This seems like one of those things that people might very reasonably not think of ahead of time but which seems blindingly obvious in retrospect. It would probably be expected that if you managed to reattach a severed limb that there wouldn't be any phantom pain afterward. ("Real" pain during the healing process yes, and perhaps lingering aches as one might have with any injury, but not phantom pain.) You'd also expect the same to hold true if you managed to grow a new arm and attach it properly.

But a simple prosthetic isn't enough to prevent or cure phantom pain. So one would expect that at _some_ point in the process between no nerve connections with a peg leg (or equivalent) and full connection with a regrown/reattached limb that the phantom pain would disappear. I guess they just encountered that point earlier than they might have expected.

Comment: Re:Lots of cheap carbon stuff (Score 1) 652

by Daetrin (#48078447) Attached to: Living On a Carbon Budget: The End of Recreation As We Know It?
You originally said "And children tend to do much better with two parents actively involved in raising them to adulthood, everything else equal." and "I would suggest that children should be a choice made by a man, and a woman together in mutual agreement whenever possible."

When it was pointed out that two women or two men could be the two parents who are actively involved in raising the children, your argument gradually morphed into "Lesbians have no ability to relate to male children in a way a dad can. Gay dads have no ability to relate to girls on their period for the first time."

This is called "moving the goalposts."

(And as an aside, you also said "THIS is sociological issues, and while not unique to Gay / Lesbian couples, affects all of them." Which is entirely untrue. Some gay couples have only male children, and some lesbian couples have only female children. And given the way in which such couples have children it is even pretty trivial to choose the genders of their children if they wish. I'm not saying they should, just that your argument that it affects "all of them" is totally unfounded.")

However to address those shifty goalposts, as far as i can tell you are basing this argument entirely on personal experience. I'm sorry if you felt your childhood was less than ideal because you didn't have a male role model, but that doesn't apply to everyone else.

I'm male and i definitely related far more closely to my mother than i did to my father, perhaps because my dad spent so much time at work. (He spent plenty of time with us during the periods when he was home so it's not like we felt neglected. I was quite happy with my childhood and as far as i know the same is true of my sister. However there's no denying that having to work to support your family means spending less time with that family.) My sister on the other hand was always arguing with my mom (and our mom told us that she always argued with her mom, and her mom told her that...) so it always seemed to me that she related much more to our dad.

Meanwhile i can't really tell any substantive differences between the son of my lesbian friends and the son of my heterosexual sister and brother-in-law. The first likes sports and video games. The second, last i checked, was into monster trucks and princesses. They're both _far_ more rambunctious than i remember being as a child (though clearly there could be some bias/rose colored glasses there) and both seem quite happy and well adjusted.

Maybe some differences will appear once they reach puberty, but i never had the "birds and the bees" talk with either of my parents. I learned all that stuff from sex ed classes at school and the internet, so i don't see why having a parent of the "appropriate" gender really matters. I honestly don't think it would have made a difference if both my parents had been women. Perhaps a girl would feel differently about having two male parents, but i can't really say anything in regards to that.

You say you think children deserve what's "best". How is not being born at all better than being born to parents of the "wrong" gender? Do you think any woman in a same-sex relationship who gets pregnant ought to immediately go get in abortion?

In short, everything i've observed has shown me that actual children of actual same sex couples can be just as happy and well adjusted as the actual children of actual heterosexual couples. That certainly isn't "proof", but it seems to me that it is a far more compelling argument than your theoretical opinions about people that you don't seem to have any actual experience with.

Comment: Re:Lots of cheap carbon stuff (Score 1) 652

by Daetrin (#48077583) Attached to: Living On a Carbon Budget: The End of Recreation As We Know It?
You seem very concerned about the "biologic process". Please explain why this is so important to you. Which do you feel is more important, the biologic process or the social contract? You seem to be trying to switch tacks but you can't have it both ways.

If the biologic process is what is most important, then a single woman who decides to get pregnant by sperm donation, from a man who you've argued above was involved in the decision making process by the choice to donate sperm, will provide just as good an environment for the child as a married heterosexual couple. Because it's the biologic process that matters, not the social situation.

If the social situation is what's important, then please provide your argument as to why a same-sex couple is inferior to a heterosexual couple. And it better be a good argument because i have living proof that a same-sex couple can successfully raise children in a healthy manner just as well as a heterosexual couple while all you've done so far is state that it's "silly" to believe that.

In particular be sure to detail how a same-sex couple that can't (currently) have children without someone else supplying one or more of the gametes in inferior to an infertile heterosexual couple who can't (currently) have children without someone else supplying one or more of the gametes. Do you believe that heterosexual couples in which one or both members are infertile should not choose to have children?

Comment: Re:Lots of cheap carbon stuff (Score 1) 652

by Daetrin (#48076925) Attached to: Living On a Carbon Budget: The End of Recreation As We Know It?
If the spouse hadn't agreed then they would not have had the children. How do you argue that she wasn't part of the decision making process?

Your original argument is that children are better off with two parents raising them. That is a matter of sociology, not biology. The "biology of 'choice'", whatever that is, is not relevant at all. The man consented to donate sperm. He was not involved at all in the social decision by the women to have and raise children as a couple.

Comment: Re:Lots of cheap carbon stuff (Score 1) 652

by Daetrin (#48076821) Attached to: Living On a Carbon Budget: The End of Recreation As We Know It?
He was not involved in the decision making process that this couple made about having children. His choice to donate sperm was indeed a choice, but not a choice in the context in which you originally phrased the question: "I would suggest that children should be a choice made by a man, and a woman together in mutual agreement whenever possible."

The man was not there for the discussion. Yes he also made a decision prior to that and you could "technically" say he was therefore involved. However the grandparents also made the decision to have the kids who would become the parents, so you could technically say they were involved. And friends made the decision to introduce the couple to each other, so you could technically say they were involved. And if you keep extending the chain of causality to people who made a decision at some point that impacted the final decision to have the kids then technically the entire planet was involved.

So i would argue your "technically" argument is incorrect, and even if i'm incorrect about its incorrectness, it's still entirely beside the point.

In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982

Working...