Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:1st (Score 1) 74

by Rideak (#49449831) Attached to: Amazon Gets Approval To Test New Delivery Drones

IMO we shouldn't outlaw a technology purely because of what someone could do with it. It's the act of invading someone's privacy that should be outlawed. This accomplishes the same thing while preserving the multitude of legitimate uses for these devices.

I don't have any problem with them being used for security surveillance on private property. If I own a large area that is prone to break ins and theft I should be allowed to patrol it with drones automatically.

I should be able to order a pizza and have it delivered by drone 5min after it's out of the oven. Or to get a package across town before the close of business.

I do have a problem with the police using them in a similar manner as constant eyes in the sky everywhere though. Or if privately owned drones were trespassing on private land trying to peek through windows.

Ground transportation is slow and dangerous. why clog up the roads with more cars?

Comment: Re:We all know what we expect is not what we want (Score 1) 208

by Rideak (#49175615) Attached to: What Would Minecraft 2 Look Like Under Microsoft?

funny that I had to come this far down to see an actual response to the OP.

in addition to these things you anticipate I also think some good stuff is on the way: Minecraft is awesome but I really think it needs top to bottom rewrite done by really good engineers who are more able to take advantage of the current hardware.

-better multithreading support
-Shaders
-bumpmaps
-better textures
-much farther view distance
-LOD
-Dynamic Lighting
-actual physics
-vehicles/heavy machinery that can operate on more than one block at a time
-multiplayer game modes (CTF, rampart style battles etc)
-a marketplace where players can sell their creations to other players (similar to the steam workshop for TF2)

Comment: Re:What it means: (Score 1) 254

by Rideak (#49043859) Attached to: What Intel's $300 Million Diversity Pledge Really Means

This video explores the following question "why are there less female engineers than male engineers and why are women over represented in careers focused on human interaction". Research across disciplines shows there is clear evidence that these differences are based in biological processes and are not purely cultural. This video interviews numerous scientists from various fields and exhibits the cognitive dissonance portrayed by proponents of gender studies and sociology.

Comment: Re:What it means: (Score 1) 254

by Rideak (#49043707) Attached to: What Intel's $300 Million Diversity Pledge Really Means

watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE

Afterwards you will understand why women will never be equally represented in technical fields like engineering and programming. Across all cultures even from birth women are generally less interested in mechanical things. There is evidence that this is biological and related to testosterone. For the same reason, men will always be underrepresented in fields focused on people like nursing, psychology etc. It's simply what each gender is more inclined to be interested in. There's nothing wrong with that either.

Comment: Re:What it means: (Score 5, Insightful) 254

by Rideak (#49043545) Attached to: What Intel's $300 Million Diversity Pledge Really Means

Exactly my feeling as well.

Equal opportunity != equal outcome. nor should it be.

just watch, the headline in 10 years:
"intel's diversity not reflected in team leads or management" (because they lowered the bar for underrepresented groups the over represented group's relative performance was better and hence will be promoted more)

followed by:
"intel pushes for new diversity initiative in promotions"
10 years later:
"intel files for bankruptcy after repeated market failures related to its line of privilege checking chips which underclock themselves based on the current user's level of privilege metric."

Comment: Re:I fail to see how it's any worse than other UIs (Score 1) 83

by Rideak (#49023223) Attached to: The Uncanny Valley of Voice Recognition

As far as voice commands go, people are inconsistent too! someone from the deep south is going to have a bit of trouble talking to someone from the UK. Especially when using slang and idioms. People from different age groups say things differently as well!

Hell, even when people are from the same area and are same age they'll need to hear something more than once before they can make sense of what's being said.

It goes well beyond just accents though. phrasing, tone, cadence, context and a bunch of other things all play important roles in voice communication.

I believe this means there can't be a "one size fits all" speech recognition system that is ready to accept input from everyone equally accurately. Speech recognition will need to take all of these factors into account to /some/ degree in order to approach the accuracy of people. Pure statistical modeling of sounds matched to commands won't cut it because even with perfect microphones in silent rooms dissimilar phrases will sound alike unless you know who it's coming from.

To the landlord belongs the doorknobs.

Working...