Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Pft (Score 1) 905

by HeckRuler (#47518633) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

Freedom of speech is a larger subject than the first amendment, the constitution of the USA, and the USA as a whole.

While the first amendment restricts what the US governments can do, it is Valve and such's policy that affects people's freedom of speech while playing these games.

Yes, they are legally allowed to do what they wish with their property. It doesn't mean that has zero impact on my freedom of speech.

And no, I don't think that they should be forced to let these hate-filled douchbags shit up the gameplay on their servers. But don't imagine for a moment that they are absolved of all issues revolving around freedom of speech. If they went full authoritarian commune-nazi, they would no longer have me as a customer.

Comment: Re:Time will tell (Score 0) 338

by HeckRuler (#47510753) Attached to: Netflix Reduces Physical-Disc Processing, Keeps Prices the Same

People are bitching because they are seeing a company that was taking advantage of new technology under the radar suddenly getting fought tooth and nail by the established old guard.

You are right that licensing fees by the studios are a major cause of this problem, but those problems only apply to the company paying those fees and all services that company offers.

And just like the established old guard needs to adapt to a brave new world of changing technology, so too do the customers that were riding the wave of first-adopter-perks. The political landscape of the industry has changed. Sucks for anyone that liked the old ways of doing things. Sometimes the beaver population is just no longer there. To be a real dick about it: Nobody moved your cheese, the cheese is simply no longer there.

Comment: Re:China has an internet? (Score 2, Interesting) 58

It's a joke.

Whoa there, it turns "innovation", "IP", "the free market", and "network neutrality" into sad jokes. And there's not a lot of respect for that sort of stuff in China. The country is still fairly repressive by modern standards.

But it very much funnels users and money back towards China. This sort of thing will not be fought by the officials in China. The minor officials get shark-fin soup, so they're all for it. But the higher ups like it just the same as it keep money from leaving the country. It's essentially protectionism.

Comment: Re:Help me understand (Score 1) 390

by HeckRuler (#47482825) Attached to: Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa

Yeah, jesus christ does Mycroft-X have it wrong.

Imagine his scenario applied to the wee little people:

Right now Verizon doesn't pay it's customers any additional money for the data being sent their way (Transport is usually paid by the shipper -- when I order a physical product I pay for shipping to the vendor, who pays the transporter).

He wants to purchase a search result form Google, who would pay Verizon to send it to him. Oh hell no.

Comment: Re:Wait for it... (Score 1) 752

by HeckRuler (#47482209) Attached to: Malaysian Passenger Plane Reportedly Shot Down Over Ukraine

So are you assuming the "separatists" are pro-Russian Ukrainians who somehow got their hands on a missile, or are you assuming the separatists are Russian military?

Even then, for both cases, you have to question how much training such soldiers received. Is #1, where some dumbasses with a missile shot down a convenient target, so much of a stretch? Also, why can't #1 and #3 be true?

Comment: Re: You read it here ... (Score 1) 435

by HeckRuler (#47474647) Attached to: FBI Concerned About Criminals Using Driverless Cars

Yeah, this, and he would have picked that up if he was an engineer worth his salt who could read english.

I'd even go so far as to say that it's OH-SHIT mode wouldn't give two shits if BOTH the grandma and the little kid would both be hit. Seriously, the alternative is trying to swerve away, off the road, into god-knows what, or barreling headlong into traffic, in an effort to play hero. At a policy level, that's fucking stupid.

No. Oh Shit = Hit the brakes. That's it. No grand overly convoluted AI ethic and morality neural-net enforcing Asimov's three laws. Keep it simple, stupid.

Imagine a car manufacturer who does not build in such a device!

Imagine a table saw manufacturer who doesn't have a shut-off when someone puts their finger in it! Because that's possible today. There's a competitor that creates such table saws. They're really expensive. Regular table-saw manufacturers haven't been sued to oblivion.

Comment: Re:You read it here ... (Score 1) 435

by HeckRuler (#47469681) Attached to: FBI Concerned About Criminals Using Driverless Cars

A driverless car cannot stop within abrupt short time.

Uh..... yes it can? Better than a human can at any rate if you boil it down to reaction times. It's still, you know, a car.

Just one, one only, example: If presented by either hitting a 4-year-old child or an octogenarian; should it take a random selection, or being programmed? If the latter is the case: who is it programmed to kill?

I imagine it'd be program to slam on the breaks and stop, minimizing the damage. Don't give me that bullshit about swerving to the side. In that case it's program to kill whoever is in violation of it's right-of-way.

Okay, a second example: You are sitting in a driverless car, with 4 of your family. A bus with 12 passengers comes up frontally (driven by an imperfect human driver, I guess). The whole thing on a narrow bridge, if you hit the bus, probabilities are it will slide to the side and tumble into a canyon. How would you think your perfect driverless car ought to be programmed?

To stop and share the narrow bridge, allowing the human-driven bus to navigate it first. Sorry, but you haven't explained how this is a critical scenario that will lead to crash.

I think you're trying to describe the scenario where how the car should sacrifice itself to save the bus. A us-or-the-bus scenario.
In that case: Slam on the breaks, minimizing the damage.

Really, you think that the car is going to have some sort of morality judgement function. No. It's going to have a "crash imminent mode" where it tries to stop. That's it.

The outcome of such a reaction might be hitting a kid. Or hitting a bus. Or whatever. But as a standard oh-shit procedure, it's solid.

the perfect driverless car becomes a pragmatic killing machine.

Pft, please. No more so than SCUBA gear, power tools, and industrial robots.
Shit hits the fan, they try to stop.

And it will never be perfect. Just good enough.

Comment: Brand.com deserves to burn in hell (Score 1) 110

The fact that a company blatantly states that they try to "enhance online branding and clear negatives by blanketing search results with positive content" means that are bold-faced EVIL. They are no longer even trying to hide it. That have accepted that society is malleable and that they can make a buck distorting the truth for the highest bidder.

They are mercenaries. They might not be shooting people in the face for money, but they're destroying the truth for money. They are paid to go censor people in the open square. It's not even the polite sort of lie of an advertisement or a commercial. No. They are paid to suppress the statements of others. To effectively gag them.

This company and ones like them are not just leeches on society, they are ACTIVELY WORKING AGAINST SOCIETY. I have no better definition of evil. Their existence is detrimental to the rest of us. Anyone who does business with them should be scorned and their names remembered.

Comment: Re:Perspective (Score 1) 138

by HeckRuler (#47415755) Attached to: Dwarf Fortress Gets Biggest Update In Years

Last couple of times I touched it I thought it was too easy.

It's almost trivial to get a farm going in a good spot. Being able to gather seeds, till the surface, and plant instantly makes the food economy dirt simple.

It doesn't give you a super-powerful fortress that can repel the goblin hoards and megabeasts, but it certainly makes the early game less engaging. I mean, remember when you seriously needed fishermen just so you wouldn't starve before your first harvest?

Starting a fortress on the tundra, or with an aquifer, or in a desert makes for a more interesting time.

Comment: Re:Crazy rant full of BS except for one thing (Score 4, Insightful) 608

by HeckRuler (#47415637) Attached to: Normal Humans Effectively Excluded From Developing Software

Yeah, I was going to say that. He's just facing burnout and age.

But "New technologies, once exciting for the sake of newness"? That phenomenon is known as being young and stupid. The new technologies are exciting because of the additional capabilities they give us. If you thought the technology was exciting just because it was new, then you've been misguided the entire time, and marketers must have loved you. They could slap "NEW" onto an old product and generate some more sales. A fresh coat of paint and it's a top seller again.

Ignore the paint. Cut through the bullshit. Does the new thing work better? If so, it's worth learning.

Or hey, you can stick to the stable and clear COBOL platform that you know so well. Since all your peers are dying off you can charge an arm and a leg for being a master at it. Hopefully you didn't gamble your decades on something like RPGII.

A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...