Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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) 247 247

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:Accepting Responsibility (Score 1) 247 247

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 2) 247 247

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 4, Informative) 247 247

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:Free Speech vs. Vigilantism (Score 1) 203 203

My experience is that people who show up for a product or service (or pizza, whatever), get what they ordered and are content ... do NOT generally stop what they're doing to run off and tell the world, "My $10 pizza was satisfactory." Anybody who has ever worked retail (and paid attention) can tell you that a hundred happy customers will simply return for more business when they want, but not take time out to communicate to the business or to anyone else that they're happy customers. Life's too short, they just carry on. People who are truly dismayed about their experience, however, will take to every communication method they can dream up to make sure the world knows of their displeasure. And some of the people who do that are just plain nuts, or have very poor judgement, or are either hobby-level or professional trolls. That's who we all hear from, well out of proportion to the real-world experiences of most people. And the internet echo-chamber tends to greatly amplify that effect.

Comment: Re:Luckily no one died (Score 2) 268 268

Millions of drone operators? I think that's a little generous.

What? People have been flying remote control hobby aircraft for well over half a century. And between companies like Blade and DJI alone, people are buying over 200,000 of the devices per month.

There's a always a risk a drone will fall out of the sky conk someone on the head.

Yup, and indeed there have been a handful of minor injuries along those lines. Statistically what amounts to zero, of course, compared to the number of people who are actually killed attending motor sports events as spectators, or while skiing, or while commuting to work... or while flying as actual licensed pilots in vehicles excrutiatingly regulated in their form, maintenance, and use by the federal government.

I think the best way to handle the drone situation is to requirement to carry a light and transmitter as well as obey automated instructions to avoid areas (basically a flight unit with a GPS can be set to have "no-go" areas).

Or, people could simply follow existing laws, and stay under 400', away from airports, and use a simple app on their phone to be made aware of FAA NOTAMs so they no when specific areas are off limits. And people who don't care about laws and rules? You're not going to be able to do anything about them (unless you can catch them after the fact of having done something stupid) than you are about people who illegally parachute off of tall buildings, or illegally drive their ATV off-road in parks, or operate their boats too fast in a no-wake zone.

Comment: Re:Luckily no one died (Score 2, Insightful) 268 268

Drone owners are idiots.

Really? There are literally millions of them. Are all of them idiots? People driving cars have a wildly worse track record when it comes to deaths. For that matter, licensed media helicopter pilots have caused more deaths. and there are merely thousands of them, not millions. What's your point?

Comment: Re:Two hours lost in fighting the fires (Score 1) 268 268

What's it going to take before these idiot drone operators come to their senses?

Yeah! And what's it going to take before these idiots who start the fires in the first place come to their senses! We should definitely regulate matches, hot catalytic converters, hibachis, and magnifying glasses. Oh, right, it's already against the law to start wildfires. Just like it's already against the law to interfere with firefighting operations. We don't need new regulations (since that won't stop idiots from being idiots anyway) - we need substantial penalties for being a jackass. Like we already have. Enforce the laws we've got, problem will be reduced as much as it can be.

Comment: Re:Prime Scalia - "Words no longer having meaning" (Score 1) 591 591

The Bush/Gore case was, I think, the most legally flawed SCOTUS decision of the past 25 years.

Why? All they did was stop Gore from employing cherry-picking and capricious unequal-protection-under-the-law methods to spin a manual count his way, something a politicized Florida court was trying to help him do. Putting a stop to that is exactly the sort of thing the SC is supposed to do, because that sort of behavior at the state court level is counter-constitutional.

This current ruling is, you're right, deeply flawed. Because it's very clear that the language in question was deliberate, and that the one-party legislative action that rammed the law through didn't contemplate the prospect of a number of states standing up to them and refusing to play ball. As Gruber pointed out, the wording of the law was intentionally meant to strong-arm the states, to essentially extort their participation in the absurd manifestation of that legislative train wreck. This was an opportunity to trash it and start over with a law that wasn't based on lies, sold with lies, and which resulted in essentially the opposite of everything its con-artist cheerleaders promised.

Comment: Re:Amazing and dreadful, simultaneously (Score 1) 381 381

Did you even read his post?

Yes, and I'm sticking with my point. If he's not offering something valuable enough that he can charge enough for his time to tolerate not being paid for a week here and there, then he needs to become more valuable, or find a customer that can afford him. Just as true for contractors as it is for traditional employees.

The market is broken because of a lack of supply

You've got this completely backwards. The market is working - it's establishing a value for the skills in question, and the GP isn't liking that value precisely because there's too much of a supply and not enough demand. He needs to go to someone who has demand, or go where it is, or offer something that's more in demand. If he does, he'll find the market works for him, just like it's supposed to.

inflexibility due to, you know, life and family

Still the market, working as expected. If he values those things more than he does bringing home more money, than he can't complain - he's the one establishing the priorities. Why should someone else make it their priority to match his goals, rather than their own? Especially when there is indeed a huge supply of people willing to do the same work, many of them who aren't putting other priorities first. It's a value analysis for everyone involved.

but reality isn't like that

It is if you want more money. If you value staying put for your kids' sake, then you've just made a value judgement, period. That's reality, working.

Comment: Re:Well, not ALWAYS the case (Score 1) 381 381

He's never brought it up publicly, so I don't know.

Right - he's never brought it up or acted to change it, like he has so many other things that he has decided are important to him. So, you DO know exactly the story. He thinks it's just fine.

And ... presidents can't "change the law," just in case you're forgetting basic Civics 101.

As of next Thursday, UNIX will be flushed in favor of TOPS-10. Please update your programs.