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


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

Comment: Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive (Score 1) 329 329

So you're arguing against regulatory stability?

You didnt answer his question. The thing is that you refuse to answer because the answer is an embarrassment to your argument. Maybe if you worked on internal consistency, you would be able to face questions that can be proudly answered.

The fact that your argument is not internally consistent makes you wrong. I know that it doesnt feel right to think another way, but feelings dont make your argument right. Internal consistency would.

Comment: Re:Basically, you can only spend so much (Score 1) 184 184

At some point his money is just sitting around, doing nothing.

You are a special kind of ignorant twat. Rich people that let their money just sit around doing nothing are soon to be not rich, which is problem solved from the perspectives of your very weak argument, yet somehow you see the problem being solved as supporting your argument that the problem needs to be solved.

Comment: Re:I still don't get this (Score 2) 132 132

Some people look for reasons to be outraged.

Something to do with NAZI's, gay rights, or slavery is the simplified lazy-mans method of being outraged. As long as everyone is shallow, nobody will notice how simplistic and shallow your outrage is. So in essence the simplistic shallow people pat themselves on the back for being so simplistic and shallow.

Don't see it yet? Go look at just about anyones facebook feed. A bunch of people patting themselves on the back for gay marriage in the U.S. even though 5-nines percent of them did exactly zero to support any gay rights.

Comment: Profitable (Score 1) 109 109

Some of those apps are probably really profitable. If you're somebody who likes to listen to lectures and you're not one of the 0.00001% of nerds who use xposed, to turn your screen off while YouTube plays costs $120/yr for a subscription (the feature is non-technically tied to Google Play Music).

There might some apps that have in-app purchase fees higher than $10/mo to keep going, but I haven't run across them. I realize you can't give everything away forever, but Google's got a lock on that market and boy do they monetize it.

Comment: Re:We're All Dicks (Score 1) 253 253

Seriously, does anyone make it to the top without at least some dickness?

Depends on which "top" you mean. If you mean "wealth and power", then, yeah, those are ends that dicks seek and so the successful there are almost entirely represented by that type.

But it's possible to have a huge amount of money and a stupid ugly yacht and for many sensible people to still consider you a failure, especially if you have failed family relationships and your employees fear you.

"Some people are so poor all they have is money."

Comment: Re:alogrithms aren't racist (Score 2) 349 349

I don't believe the algorithm is impugning the humanity of my offspring, I just think it is far-from-perfect.

But is the algorithm even wrong? I think the question to the Google recognizer is "of the images in my collection which ones look most like a seal"? If the collection is mostly all pictures of your kids, it'll show you the pictures of your kids that it thinks have the most in common with what it has as an idea about what seals look like. This isn't to make fun of your kids, of course, it's just its best guess due to the nature of the question that was asked of it. A human could make a similar selection when posed with the same question.

So as to the point of TFA, the searcher asked Google for the pictures that are most likely to be pictures of a gorilla inside his photo collection. If we assume that there were not actual pictures of gorillas in the collection, then the guess might not be a bad one. If you gave any human a set of pictures of a speedboat, a skyscraper, a turtle, a box of cereal, and a woman, and asked the human which one of those things looks most like a gorilla, there's only one truthful answer. It might be an offensive one to some people but that doesn't make the guess mathematically incorrect.

Reading the Twitter stream, Google has decided to censor such results. Their first attempt was to say "if somebody searches for gorilla and it matches a picture with a face in it, don't show that". That failed on two pics where a face wasn't recognized, so they added even more filtering and now they're building an i18n wordlist of "offensive" words to restrict the algorithm's output depending on locale.

Being a for-profit company, one of Google's primary concerns is to not alienate its users, so for them I'm sure it's the right move. But we need to be aware that it is imposing censorship (on itself) and that the output of the algorithm is becoming less useful to some degree to avoid offending some people. It's their trade-off to make, for sure, but for the larger computing community it's a valuable lesson to keep in mind. Such trade-offs need to be made carefully and consciously.

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

But the people writing the algorithm and choosing the input data *can* be racist. And even in the absence of malice, you can create racist outcomes.

This just in:

Fwipp, who doesnt know shit about machine learning, has decided that deep convolution networks can be cleverly programmed to be racist. Fwipp knows that he doesnt know shit about machine learning, but feels that his expertise in finding racist versions of both bubble sort and hello world qualifies him as an expert here.

Comment: Manage Outsourcing (Score 2) 246 246

You listed a bunch of strengths:
1) she has J2EE experience
2) she lives in Spain where the developer job market sucks
3) she has the talent
4) she'd like to move up to a better job

So, how about she goes and finds un/under-employed local programmers, sets up a syndicate, and manages outsourcing jobs for enterprises in areas where the labor market is tight?

That will gain her marketable sales and management skills which she can then parlay into better career opportunities. Maybe even sell the company once it's successful.

I'm assuming she can speak English about as well as you can, which is plenty good (I can't tell if you're native or not).

Here's the thing that bothers me most about your post, though: she's of child-bearing age, so I'll assume under 40, and you say doing IT is better than picking up a new career now. Don't fool yourself - she'll be working another 40 years (unless the AI's take over) and so she's less than 1/3rd of the way into her career. If you love her, you'll want her to be happy for the next 40 years, and you'll support her in finding/creating something that supports her passions and can pay the bills. So, if she really hates IT, ignore what I wrote above and work hard to help her find her purpose.

Comment: Re:That's not what the blockchain is for (Score 1) 46 46

The bitcoin solution is to sell the space to the highest bidder

'A', not 'the'. Sidechains are a much better bitcoin approach (the blockchain need only record the entry and exit points). Marc Andresson's company has been working on just this for a year or more.

Comment: Re:Apples and oranges (Score 1) 107 107

So then, aren't size comparisons between OpenSSL and s2n at best useless, and at worst intentionally misleading?

Possibly misleading, if one doesn't understand the true claims, but definitely useful.

If you're just using OpenSSL for running servers and s2n can provide all of the functions a server needs, and s2n is is 1% of openssl's size, then it's a much, much cheaper target for auditing, and so it's far more feasible to feel secure about it.

If you're doing something different with OpenSSL then the use case probably doesn't apply.

It may be that a machine analysis of the OpenSSL codebase, starting with the function calls from, say, mod_ssl, could produce a useful graph of the OpenSSL code that's actually in use by typical servers. I'm not personally aware of such an effort, but it seems obvious enough that probably somebody has done it.

Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.