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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Lame duck (Score 1) 190 190

Remember, before Obama took it over,the conservative Heritage Foundation invented what is now the ACA,

..which makes the Left just as evil as the Right.

Oh you thought that this fact defended the ACA? Since you sit there actively defending evil, we can only conclude one thing: You are evil too.

Comment: Re:[T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at t (Score 1) 190 190

That you think they're talking points shows that you have no idea what's actually going on with your government.

This isnt quite correct I think. It isnt that he doesnt know whats going on. Its that he doesnt understand the significance of the facts. He only understands the "significance" of the sound-bites that tug on heart-strings. This is the guy that thinks that when it comes to public policy, that "everyone's opinion is of equal worth." Opinion trumps data and facts in his world.

Comment: Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive (Score 1) 330 330

So you're arguing against regulatory stability?

You didnt answer his question. The thing is that you refuse to answer because the answer is an embarrassment to your argument. Maybe if you worked on internal consistency, you would be able to face questions that can be proudly answered.

The fact that your argument is not internally consistent makes you wrong. I know that it doesnt feel right to think another way, but feelings dont make your argument right. Internal consistency would.

Comment: Re:Basically, you can only spend so much (Score 1) 186 186

At some point his money is just sitting around, doing nothing.

You are a special kind of ignorant twat. Rich people that let their money just sit around doing nothing are soon to be not rich, which is problem solved from the perspectives of your very weak argument, yet somehow you see the problem being solved as supporting your argument that the problem needs to be solved.

Comment: Re:I still don't get this (Score 2) 135 135

Some people look for reasons to be outraged.

Something to do with NAZI's, gay rights, or slavery is the simplified lazy-mans method of being outraged. As long as everyone is shallow, nobody will notice how simplistic and shallow your outrage is. So in essence the simplistic shallow people pat themselves on the back for being so simplistic and shallow.

Don't see it yet? Go look at just about anyones facebook feed. A bunch of people patting themselves on the back for gay marriage in the U.S. even though 5-nines percent of them did exactly zero to support any gay rights.

Comment: Re:alogrithms aren't racist (Score 1) 352 352

But the people writing the algorithm and choosing the input data *can* be racist. And even in the absence of malice, you can create racist outcomes.

This just in:

Fwipp, who doesnt know shit about machine learning, has decided that deep convolution networks can be cleverly programmed to be racist. Fwipp knows that he doesnt know shit about machine learning, but feels that his expertise in finding racist versions of both bubble sort and hello world qualifies him as an expert here.

Comment: Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive (Score 4, Insightful) 330 330

Medallion owners bought the medallions with the understanding that they were buying into a limited monopoly.

..and I bought stock in oil reserves with the understanding that I was buying into a limited monopoly. Then Saudi Arabia started dumping oil on the market. Should the government make me whole again, too?

It seems that you are the victim of a common misconception: That the State is the one selling the medallions that cost so much. Wrong, ignorant fuck.

Comment: Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive (Score 1) 330 330

If you are right, then why can't/won't Uber compete legally with medalioned taxi companies?

So we have to argue circles with you? you have been told why

The medallions are of limited supply because those taxi companies, the ones with the monopoly on them, lobby government to keep them in limited supply.

You have proven to us that the Statists dont give a fuck about the facts, that we have to argue endlessly in circles with you. Go fuck yourselves.

Comment: Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters? (Score 1) 177 177

What are you talking about? The government isnt repossessing medallions. Its this sort of irrational babel that has convinced me that the Statists don't care about any facts at all. They don't even get the basics right. its as if they are living on another world where reality is completely different.

Reality: The government isnt selling $1,000,000 medallions in new york city.
Reality: The government isnt repossessing medallions.

Comment: Re:Both the submitter and WSJ got it wrong (Score 1) 229 229

The submitter read the article and keyed on the comment about this being a machine learning, which they feel is impossible.

..which seems odd since there is a growing belief that intelligence is an emergent property of a particular subset of learning mechanics, and this isnt so much because of the vast knowledge we "understand" about brains so much as it is about the limitations we know must exist. For instance learning in brains must be primarily accomplished by local operators since the connectivity in the brain is primary local, and there cannot be many such operators since the brain is composed of essentially only 4 kinds of neurons. There is no evidence of any kind of global algorithm (beyond the physics.) Even the timing of the neurons is sloppy.

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman