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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Relatively meaningless (Score 1) 88

They have contact lists as big as medium sized cities. It is fairly easy to be connected to random strangers via two "hubs" that have 10,000 "contacts" each.

Also important to understand does this actually mean anything worthwhile?
eg, One degree means I can go up and talk to that person because I know them. 2 degrees, I might be able to go an introduce myself depending on the situation, and 3 degrees and over are strangers.
So anything over 2 is meaningless outside the mental exercise.

Comment Re:Configurability (Score 1) 442

A good AI (outside of some sort of drama-like context imposing constraints on what works) should be configurable, to have as much or as little subservience as you want. That's what ownership means.Your computer should do whatever you want it to.

Yes and when I play Counter Strike I want the bots to be nude women, and order me pizza, because I bought Counter Strike, it should do everything I want it to do...

Comment Re:That may be. (Score 1) 442

I think the Oberlin example proves there are SJWs.

I think we all know the SJW syndrome, but in here it's The Boy Who Cried SJW.
Socialised medicine? SJW!
Reduce pollution? SJW!
Not wanting to be shot in the face going to the store? SJW!
Everything I don't like? SJW!
The phrase has become the catch cry of the idiots who don't know how to have a rational discussion.

Comment Re:That may be. (Score 4, Insightful) 442

- People are tired of the SJW shitposting.

I'm tired of dickheads using the term SJW at every possible opportunity as if it's an automatic argument winning statement.
If you are unable to discuss the nuances of human behaviour without reverting to standard name calling, then please go somewhere else.

Comment Re:Sexual Assault (Score 1) 442

Cortana should be treated like a simple piece of computer software, and whether I want to use emacs' Eliza mode to write the next best seller or copy-paste LOL DONGS a thousand times is of no consequence.

It is if the person writing the software doesn't want you to do that with their creation. It's a free world right? If I want to write overly PC-strict bot software, then who are you to try and stop me?

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 291

Yup, you still don't understand that having a right and having it successfully defended are not the same thing. Stop back by when you understand the difference.

I understand that you think that, but that's the thing with real life, it doesn't care what you think. If you need examples, ask every victim of every revolution or warzone who suddenly had saw their rights disappear when the men with guns showed up.

Comment Re:Surprised? (Score 1) 553

YES. I've got a MSWind95 machine that's going to stay running until it dies because I've got some data in applications that cannot be transferred. I've got an Apple Sys 10.4 that's warehoused and will never be upgraded (not that it can be any more) because it has proprietary file format data only accessible with programs that don't run on any modern system.

I seen something similar, a guy I know had a CNC Milling App written in DOS which he had to keep and old 1980's era PC around for. But when people complain about propriety formats, they are generally targeting MS (It's one of the classic 'I hate MS because...' arguments). So while I agree proprietary is bad with bespoke stuff, especially small operators that go out of business, have you ever had issue with any MS files? (namely doc, xls, pps/ppt)? And since Office has allowed you to save in open formats for the last 12 years or so, this attack vector against MS is no longer a valid one.

Comment Re:privacy and security. (Score 1) 553

It has been documented time and time again that Windows 10 logs and sends information to MS

By whom? A quick read of this method shows that it is flawed (of course turning off ports will cause Windows to try again on different ports). I prefer someone I trust, a professional with a reputation and financial stake in the game, than "some guy on the internet".

With this story it appears to do it even when configured not to.

As above, his method is flawed so any other claims can be dismissed. My guy says it can be configured to be disabled. Who to believe?

What you seem to miss is that a lot of these random people making the reports actually are...

I don't dismiss that the telemetry thing is a big concern, and we're not going there yet. But I've spoken to people I know (people with Federal government security clearances) who are doing their own tests and seem to be confident that it's not a threat.
I'll always trust those people than "Some guy on the Internet".

Comment Re:"85%" (Score 1) 567

Just like the "cigarettes kill dogma" doesn't explain the millions of people who smoke every day and don't develop lung cancer, right? You're really grasping at straws here.

Nope, that is backed by science. Try again Strawman.

Actually, it's you and the rest of the "I'll drive as fast as I want" crowd that's claiming there's a magical scientific principle that somehow cancels the laws of physics and makes that safe.

I never claimed that, Strawman.
I said I drive as fast as I want and I haven't crashed in 30 years. I'd like to know how does this fit in with your "speed kills" hypothesis? As on the surface it seems to blow a big hole in it.

If you recall, I asked back at the beginning for you to provide evidence of that claim. Your response was a Wikipedia link to the scientific method. 'Nuff said.

Wrong again. Go back and read the thread, it's documented there for all to see.
"The fact that 85% of the people that drive by my house decide to drive like reckless idiots doesn't magically make it safer for them to do so."

You made the first claim and are still yet to back it up with anything other than opinion
You then backed it up with another claim
"this supposed 85% rule has zero applicability in a residential setting"
This also hasn't been backed up by anything yet.

If you say so. Meanwhile, I've provided actual research and you've provided nothing but your own blowhard opinion.

Yes you posted actual research to something other than the topic at hand, as I already pointed out. I posted a reference to the scientific method because you seem to not know how it works.
Like every other "speed kills" dogma I've ever seen, it's pseudo-science at it's finest.

Slashdot Top Deals

Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.