Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:WRONG (Score 2, Insightful) 226

Again, WRONG.

Theft is depriving someone of their property, preventing its use. Copying does not deprive the original owner of their property or its use.

Theft is naturally unethical (e.g. stealing another animal's food - possibly depriving it of life). Copying is naturally ethical (e.g. most of nature copies copiously, and thrives off of it - ever heard of DNA?).

Modern humans just happened to decide to provide an *artificial* monopoly of law (an unnatural construct) that allows someone to specify who can copy their works. HUGE difference.

Comment WRONG (Score 3, Insightful) 226

How many times do we have to explain that copying something is different than stealing something?

It is incredibly *dangerous* to our culture to have the vernacular polluted in a way that equates a criminal deed to a legally mandated civil disregard.

The title of this article should be changed.

Comment Oil used in producing industrialized food (Score 1) 285

I think a bigger fact missed here is the amount of oil that is used in the production of industrialized food, which is what is making everyone fat.

My guess is that the production and processing of the epic amounts of corn and meat easily use more oil than the marginally extra that is used in lost efficiency of vehicles because of fat people.

If people ate healthier, then we would probably rely less on these industrial processes.

Comment What I have (Score 1) 1186

I knew I wanted it ever since I was 14, and at 18 drove to a neighboring state where it was legal to get it: It's a circle on my upper right shoulder blade. Many Greek mathematicians/philosophers considered it a symbol of perfection.

And screw these people who say tattoos suck, it's your body, do with it what you want. It's an art form, of course some people don't get it. But I do agree with those who say that you should think long and hard about what you are getting. Do not do it on a whim.

Comment Re:Talent (Score 2, Interesting) 742

It's true. I hate programming in C, much less moving down to assembly. On top of that, kernel programming is just not that interesting to me.

Sure, poo-poo PHP and JS. They have their place, and some really interesting stuff is being built with them (especially with PHP >= 5.3, or server-side JS). Quite frankly, I'll program in any language that gives me the tools to *easily* create what I've constructed in my head.

And if something I build happens to run slowly to the point where I have to drop down and code something in C, I'll pay one of you "cranky old men" to do it for me. But most of the time it's just an architectural problem that wouldn't have been created any differently with a different, lower level, language (for example, caching). After all, it's not like I'm crunching the latest numbers that come out of CERN.

Not that I don't value kernel development, trust me, I do.

Comment They are afraid to "release" him. (Score 1) 527

Bringsjord acknowledges that the endeavor to create pure evil, even in a software program, does raise ethical questions, such as, how researchers could control an artificially intelligent character like E if "he" was placed in a virtual world such as Second Life...

Seriously? You could control it by deleting it if it got out of hand.

In my opinion, having it enter a virtual world posing as a real person would definitely prove whether or not it has the AI that it does, evil AI or not.

The more likely explanation is that this "evil" AI only works within a very limited construct of creator-controlled existence.

Comment Re:Can it be retroactive? (Score 1) 766

Generally, I would agree with you. Cutting useless government programs is a good thing (though, judging by your example, we'd probably have very different ideas of what to cut). Based on that assumption, I think you have to look at the merit of the project as a basis for implementation, and not just whether or not it can be paid for. The question (as many other posts have hit on) is whether pouring more tax dollars, where ever they come from, into colleges is worth it. Some would see that the colleges raise tuition in response to the "free" money as evidence that it doesn't work, and that just hurts the people that pay for college on their own. To me, that doesn't seem very fair.

"Free" is probably the most improperly used word in modern vocabulary. There are so few things in life that are actually "free". It costs somebody something. I would prefer to call this "tax-subsidized education" (an accurately descriptive name), but then the beneficiaries would feel as though people have pity for them instead of thinking this benefit comes out of thin air.

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.