Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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: Re:The idea was a good one, the execution poor (Score 5, Insightful) 187

by TapeCutter (#49164911) Attached to: That U2 Apple Stunt Wasn't the Disaster You Might Think It Was

Not asking permission is theft.

I'm a fan of U2 and I can see how some people might consider what they did rude or presumptuous, but theft? - No, just leave the contorted 'theft' analogies to the MAAFIA. No offense intended, but they are much better at it than you are.

Comment: Re:Best idea is not to hide. (Score 1) 216

It all depends upon the STORY being told.

If the "infection" has already happened (you're a zombie when you die whether or not you were bitten) then that changes the math.

Then it comes down to how fast you become a zombie once a zombie bites you. Seconds or days?

And, finally, it comes down to whether this is going to be a book or a movie/TV show. In a book the protagonists can employ non-FPS means to deal with zombies. Otherwise you're stuck with hand-to-hand and guns.

Comment: Re:Cutting Off Speech? (Score 1) 452

Similarly, ...

No. Not similarly.

Just because A and B share a single common feature does NOT make A = B. And your original claim was incorrect. Twitter is not "the modern equivalent of the public square".

Particularly when you then try to argue that C and D are also equal.

Comment: Re:Cutting Off Speech? (Score 1) 452

Is it good to cut off access to the modern equivalent of the public square just because we don't like what is being said?

It's a good thing that no one is doing that, right?

Remember, twitter is owned by the twitter people who get to decide who is allowed to post what on twitter.

Just because you feel you have something to say does NOT mean that EVERYONE has to carry YOUR message.

Comment: Re:YES (Score 2) 356

by TapeCutter (#49160877) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links
"Fact" engines such as Watson normally produce several results (facts) with a confidence rating on each and can show their "reasoning" step by step. The step by step reasoning is much more useful as a confirmation method than the source code. Source code won't help you much unless you have a solid background in statistical analysis.

Comment: Re:Search Neutrality? (Score 3, Interesting) 356

by TapeCutter (#49160681) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links

Maybe there should be a concept such as Search Neutrality.

Search is already neutral, it's the order of results that upsets people because by definition, ranking cannot be neutral. An intelligent search engine such as IBM's Watson gives a confidence rating on it's "facts", it can produce multiple answers each with a confidence ranking. They can also explain in excruciating detail how they arrived at the answer, and they can do it better than humans. Technology is a tool, a hammer that can be used to build or destroy a civilization.

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn

Working...