Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:alogrithms aren't racist (Score 1) 349 349

I can't help but wonder if this person (which I haven't seen) actually did resemble a gorilla. Wouldn't be the first time I've seen such a thing.

I suspect that if the person misidentified was white, this wouldn't be news however.

Yeah, god forbid you actually glance at the fucking linked article. I'm not even expecting you to read it, just look at the pictures. I know delaying your insightful reply by 10 seconds would be torture, otherwise how could you proclaim your ignorance?

Comment: Re:Actually, you can use a selfie stick... (Score 0) 177 177

I think Disney will clarify their statement -- "You can still use a selfie stick, as long as it's bought from a country overseas at a cheaper price."

You obviously don't know how Disney operates. They will allow the use of selfie sticks (now called "Mickey Sticks") that you buy from the park at a massively overinflated prices, maybe $200-$300, and of course you must use "Disney Dollars" to buy them because regular dollars aren't "fun".

Comment: Re:I'm spending 60% of my monthly income on rent (Score 1) 939 939

Imagine a toy market consisting of only two people, who both do the same work and make the same money from that work. One of them has more capital than he's using, and the other doesn't have enough capital to use. The latter then has to borrow capital from the former, and pay the former for the privilege. Thus, though they both contribute exactly the same work, one of them accumulates more capital and the other loses it, only because the prior distribution of capital was different.

In your example, person 1 is providing both work and risking capital where person 2 is only providing work. Why shouldn't person 1 receive a greater reward than person 2 when he is taking a risk and doing just as much work? If person 2 wants to get the same outcome as person 1 he needs to work harder than person 1, not do the exact same work. Yes, capitalism is rigged for people who already have capital, that is why we have things such as progressive tax structures and estate taxes - to try to even that out. The beauty of the system is that anyone can own capital - in contrast to most other systems you can work yourself up the ladder and be an owner rather than just a worker.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 0) 289 289

an EULA is a binding contract, and there has never been one thrown out of court to date.

Never? What about Klocek v. Gateway? The court found in that case that since the sale occurred before the "agreement" that the terms of the agreement were not part of the original sale and struck down the EULA. You better go back to law school for the second semester, obviously the stuff learned in the first semester isn't everything.

Comment: Re:Not usually an (R) but... (Score 1) 500 500

his stance is simple, and consistent. "is it constitutional?"

The problem is that he thinks HE is the one who gets to decide what is constitutional, no matter that the constitution grants that power to the Supreme Court:

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so" [reference]
-Rand Paul

Comment: Re:It showed a lot (Score 2) 385 385

I remember lots of Democrat outrage when it first came to be.

Are you talking about the Patriot Act that passed the Senate 98-1? Sure, the one dissenting Senator was a Democrat (Feingold) but that is hardly "lots of Democrat outrage". The Democrats weren't outraged then and they aren't outraged now, they want to snoop on you and control you JUST as much as "the party of small government" does. The US party duopoly is two sides of the same shitty coin.

Comment: Re:Truck ? (Score 1) 837 837

Yes, because semi trucks pay gas taxes. Also, other taxes.

But more to the point, you and I benefit from semi trucks delivering the goods that we like to buy. You and I do NOT benefit from private passenger vehicles other than our own. Make sure to factor that into your cost-benefit analysis.

That assumes that all truck traffic is carrying consumer goods, however this isn't the case. If a gold-mining company is hauling a 190,000 pound excavator to a job site, how does that benefit me? Currently, automobiles are subsidizing such road use with the gas tax, this law seems like it will make that subsidy even greater. Large trucks do not pay taxes in proportion to the damage they do to the roads, since damage increases exponentially with weight.

Comment: Re:not far enough. (Score 1) 201 201

These are occupation statistics, so recreational flyers won't apply. However, the other occupations you mentioned are relevant, particularly small charter planes. For example, in Alaska there are tons of places that are only accessible from the air and there is a large charter plane and bush plane industry which often has to fly in challenging conditions.

Comment: Re:The song remains the same (Score 1) 201 201

A Sheriff is often elected, other than that most police aren't elected. However, the people who give them their marching orders (District Attorney, Mayor) often are elected so that is where voter pressure needs to be applied. Not that it will do much good, both dominant political parties in the US are quite authoritarian so it is unlikely any serious action will be taken against the police departments.

Comment: Re:satellites (Score 1) 403 403

Either my understanding of orbital mechanics is completely wrong or that is completely incorrect.

It's the former. Hint: the moon is beyond geosync distance but somehow it manages to stay in orbit. The "balanced" orbit you are thinking of may be the Lagrange Points, where the gravity of a body balances with the gravity of another body.

Comment: Re:This is not a good thing. (Score 2) 866 866

Actual scientific studies seem to indicate that poorer people are much more likely to be religious than well-off people. For examples, look at this Gallup page that says Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations. Or check out the Wikipedia page on Wealth and Religion which says "The GDP of countries generally correlates negatively with their religiosity, i.e. the wealthier a population is the less religious it is". There are several studies cited on that page that seem to support that conclusion. You claim to have a source for your assertion that "lack of religion in the us is strongly correlated with poverty", can you please provide it?

Comment: Re:AI is not predictable to humans (Score 1) 408 408

I drive roadsters that can stop on a dime. If I stand on my brakes because I hallucinated a wall in the middle of the highway, I can guarantee that people behind me will rear-end me. Would you say there were following me too close and are at fault?

The law says that they are at fault if they hit you from behind. It is the responsibility of the trailing driver (or computer) to allow enough following distance to safely stop if the car in front of them stops. If their car takes longer to stop than yours, they need to allow a greater following distance - just like semi drivers are expected to now since their trucks take longer to stop than a car. This should be one of the places where a computer excels, not only will they always leave enough room to stop safely they will also have a quicker reaction time than a human and so can apply the brakes more quickly.

Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.