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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Why animals can't be given human rights. (Score 1) 89 89

I tend to weigh on the side that sentient animals should receive protections similar to the protections we give to children or to adults deemed legally incompetent. That means they can't exercise many of the rights that we recognize adult humans have, but neither can they be wantonly exploited, physically or psychologically harmed.

There are already animal cruelty laws that could be amended to grant better protection from human-on-animal neglect and abuse. The problem with giving them rights is that they'd apply to animal-on-animal action or environmental harm. You wouldn't let a child assault another child, would you? But it would be crazy if we were equally compelled to intervene if a gorilla assaults another gorilla. And we wouldn't let kids hunger or thirst or freeze to death, yet that happens to animals in nature all the time. Not doing them harm is way different from being responsible for their well-being.

Comment Re:The Segway problem (Score 1) 32 32

The hapless Segway would have been hero technology had it first been marketed to those handicapped who can stand but not walk. It would be intermediate tech between fully mobile and chairs, which take you out of the eye-contact world of the normally upright.

And who exactly might that be? Anyone with a bad hip or knee wouldn't want to stand any significant amount of time. Nor the morbidly obese. And those with balance or support problems probably can't use a Segway at all, they'd still need their walker. Amputees would still prefer prosthetics that cloak their handicap better. Sure they're faster and less tiresome, but I can't really think of any condition where you're unable to stand/walk short distances and still able to use a Segway.

Comment What a load of bullcrap (Score 1) 42 42

Compassion and empathy is an indication that while I have a life to live, I care about yours too. Computers and robots already exist solely to serve me, whether they can beat me at chess or not doesn't give them any life of their own. If you're already a doormat, there's no point in saying please walk all over me. For the same reason I've never felt the need to say please to a computer, though I might occasionally call on a higher power for it to please work. And you will know it's a load of circuits, unless you like to live a self-delusion you'll know there's no feeling behind it. Faking it will just get creepy, like HAL 9000: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" instead of "Permission denied."

Let's review a few of the inventions that have replaced work already like the washing machine or the dishwasher. If I had a person to do my laundry, I mean literally scrub it like in ye olde days I'd treat them nicely. The washing machine I turn a few knobs and it works or I curse it because I have to call a plumber. I won't thank my car for driving itself, nor for a robot being my housekeeper, chef, waiter, butler, gardener, delivery boy or whatever else work they can get it just becomes a piece of machinery that we expect to work. I've already outsourced my vacuuming to a slightly intelligent robot, the main thing is it's functional.

Comment Re:It's shocking- read it (Score 1) 363 363

Well, I note most of these involve Cortana - Windows 10's digital assistant. If you want your OS to be your personal assistant it's going to be tough if it doesn't know anything about you. If you feel this is more like a Microsoft stalker, I'm sure there's an off switch.

Comment Re:In the US. (Score 1) 740 740

Again, this works in the US with big suburbs where everyone has a parking lot with an electric outlet. In other countries (like good old Europe), where most people live in apartments and there is just no way you can plug your car at night, it doesn't work.

Apartment buildings and fixed parking spots are far from mutually exclusive, either through a parking cellar or dedicated garages/parking spots. Granted, Norway is a cold country where a garage may be more useful than down south but by household:

58% have a garage or carport
25% have a private parking spot
17% have no parking

Of the last 17% only 38% have a car, so in practice it's only 6.5% that don't have a fixed spot for their car. And that probably includes people that have rented a parking spot nearby, in practice few wants to be nomads trying to find free street parking every day. Of course you would have to get an electrician to mount an outlet, but beyond that it's not really a problem.

Comment Re:settled cannon for about a decade now (Score 1) 76 76

Part of me wonders if this is deliberate. No graphics drivers that are useful, no games. No games, no Linux desktop.

Why? AMD has no stake or interest in what OS you game on, they're just looking to sell their hardware. They get no benefit from enabling or pushing a migration to Linux unless they can steal customers from nVidia/Intel that way, which seems highly unlikely. You don't need a conspiracy to explain why companies don't do things that don't benefit them.

Comment Re:wrong question (Score 1) 53 53

Honestly, I'd beg to differ. When you cut a human body open you're likely to find a relatively standard set of organs. Even with all conditions and permutations it is a whole less open-ended than say driving a car, where arguably a lot of odd conditions could happen at any time. In short, there's a few vital functions that that the body must uphold and if a robot surgeon does he's not making anything worse. He might not cure everything, but that's not the point.

Comment Re:What we have vs. what we want (Score 1) 307 307

A conversation about the internet that is long, long overdue: Is what we *have* what we *want*, and if not, what can be done about it? What we HAVE is a global network that will never, ever let you forget that silly thing you did whilst young and drunk that everyone thought was so hilarious at the time. Is that really what we want?

Maybe not. But it's kinda meaningless to quibble about the negative side effects when it's obvious the positive effects are so huge there's no way we'll give up on it, nobody likes drive-by shooting but it's obvious we're not going to give up cars. Yes, we would like a free global information-sharing network.

Comment Re:No (Score 2) 307 307

This. By far most embarrassing things you've said or done are laid dead when you own up to it and say I was young and foolish, okay? Most of the problem actually comes from shielded youngsters who are still too mentally immature to blush, cope and move on. Of course there are situations you might be caught in that would be genuinely embarrassing, like revenge porn but then you're typically dealing with malice and an army of Internet trolls who won't let it go away anyway. In short, either you ought to grow a thicker skin or you have to grow a thicker skin.

Comment Re:Kickstarter? (Score 3, Interesting) 550 550

Except that they're coming in way below their yearly outlook which said:

Revenue:
$18 - $20 mm
Adjusted EBITDA:
$5 - $6 mm
Net income:
$3 - $4 mm

But later they're giving Q2 figures saying for the last 6 months:

Revenue:
7,667 mm
Adjusted EBITDA:
0,852 mm
Net income:
0,316 mm

If the last half of the year is the same, they're only making about 15%-20% of their planned net income. In fact, the last quarter they made no money at all. So I'm thinking way, way less.

Comment Re:Is it going to matter much? (Score 1) 170 170

Even if it's a thousand times more durable than NAND it's not much in a loop, if you just write to the same memory location over and over with DDR4 you can write every 5 cycles @ 1.25ns/cycle = 160,000,000 writes/second. I would think the greatest advantage would be a write cache which could return ~1000 times faster from a flush() making sure it's committed to non-volatile memory. The SSD can then work "behind the scenes" to move it to slower SLC/MLC/TLC.

Comment Re:Here's the list (Score 1) 118 118

Mainly he's confusing a project which uses an open source licence for a project that wants a community based development model. Google doesn't release the Chromium source so that they can get contributions, they do it to be open so that nobody can claim they're creating another proprietary web like IE did with their closed source, non-standard implementation. And that is all. I mean, he's talking about the source code to the world's most popular browser so it's obviously a very narrow definition of "failure", I doubt neither Google nor the users see it that way.

A slow pup is a lazy dog. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"

Working...