Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

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: Out of the books before Gygax left in '85... (Score 2) 55

by HBI (#49170283) Attached to: Games Workshop At 40: How They Brought D&D To Britain

Fiend Folio was the dumbest. Some of the monsters were really lame, and the nicer ones were mostly inclusions by TSR US, such as the Nycadaemon which had already appeared in D3 (Vault of the Drow). I have a close to 30 year continuity on my 1ed campaign and I rarely touch the Fiend Folio.

Comment: Re: Jerri (Score 1) 482

Obama can't countermand the order? Are you really saying that? Bush was trying to pressure the Iraqis into a SOFA agreement. Closer to the actual withdrawal date, a smarter strategy is required.

So, the civilian uprising that happened when we left was better than the one that the Shia would have stage-managed?

If you had any experience with fighting in Iraq, you'd realize that if anything is going to be done about ISIS, it'll have to be a foreign power doing it. The Iraqi forces are ineffectual - poorly led and lacking in ideology and resolve compared to their opponents. The Syrians had the same problem, aside from the Alawite core that is loyal to Assad. Note the sectional relationship - worth far more in that area of the world than any contrived "nationality". ISIS is a catch-22. Either you fix it from outside or acknowledge that a Caliphate is in the cards.

Comment: Re: Jerri (Score 2, Informative) 482

This is such a load of horseshit.

First of all, Bush was out of office 3 years by the time we actually pulled out of Iraq. Blaming shit on him at that point means Obama is ineffectual and can't negotiate things. Is that what you are saying?

Second, you can't leave forces in a country without a SOFA once you have acknowledged its sovereignty. Iraq refused to grant one that was palatable to the US. It's not about war crimes, it's about "your soldier raped an Iraqi girl" or "soldier ran over Iraqi kid" - will it be tried in military courts or the Iraqi civilian ones? That said, if pushed hard enough (by the ineffectual O administration) the Iraqis would have granted one. In retrospect, they would have been very ill-advised not to, and it was made clear later that they were prepared to deal for the right concessions. The O administration saw political benefits in not pushing for a SOFA - just pre-2012 election, remember? As it stands, it was less than 2 years between US withdrawal and ISIS taking over most of the north of Iraq. Anyone could have seen that coming, the Shiite government is about as dumb as rocks and couldn't concede even a little to the Sunnis. That's why 25% of the country ruled over the Shia majority for most of recorded history post-Prophet.

Yes, Republicans don't care about sovereignty. That's why Democrats were responsible for denying the Vietnamese self-determination for most of the 1960s and for that matter, invading North Korea even though the UNC authorization gave them no such authority. Of course, we all remember Bush 41 taking Baghdad because he didn't care about Iraqi sovereignty. And Bush 43 didn't have a UN authorization to do what he did in Iraq and Afghanistan. You're definitely right here.

Comment: Re:Ignorant premise (Score 1) 530

by HBI (#49139859) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

That's a particularly weak argument. You have no evidence to back this up, just an assertion. Yet the visible signs of emotion in babies and pets are well documented. You seem to be saying that if the being demonstrating emotion can't talk to act as a witness of his own emotion, then it's unprovable that they are sustaining emotion. They could be faking it to avoid being considered prey. At some future point, they figure out how to perform the same actions in the same situations for a reason, and therefore give up faking the behavior.

William of Ockham would say that you were full of baloney.

Comment: Re:Ignorant premise (Score 1) 530

by HBI (#49139011) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

Babies have emotion from the moment they are born. It's not learned, at least outside the womb. Newborns are curious, get angry, and get happy. Spent enough time with a vernix-covered infant (my own two) to know that.

I suppose the belief is that if you create code that is capable of learning, sufficient iterations of it will gain consciousness as a result of that capability, and therefore the capability to observe one religion or another.

Unfortunately, I think there's a 2. ??? line in there somewhere. Something like:

1. Code machine capable of independent learning
2. ???
3. Consciousness

The catch is in the ???

Comment: Re:You know... (Score 1) 698

by HBI (#49129135) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Terminally Ill - What Wisdom Should I Pass On To My Geek Daughter?

His daughters are 30 and 27 now. Both married. I don't talk to them much, I find their husbands to be annoying. They were the beneficiaries of a significant insurance settlement as a result of their father's death and had some wealthy relatives who paid all their bills. They're both a bit full of themselves as a result.

"Who alone has reason to *lie himself out* of actuality? He who *suffers* from it." -- Friedrich Nietzsche