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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Debate fail, and whoosh! (Score 1) 299

As much music as what? You have nothing to compare it to. You cannot say what the industry would have done if there was no copyright, so the volume of content we have today proves nothing. For we know, we might have twice the content if we had no law getting in the way of creating content. So, sorry, your claim is still worthless.

Comment: Has Hollywood heard about super volcanoes yet? (Score 1) 152

by TiggertheMad (#49541691) Attached to: Yellowstone Supervolcano Even Bigger Than We Realized
When it does erupt again, the humans might be long gone. Or, maybe not.

The real question is, will humans still be here after it erupts....

I was around when St. Helen's blew up, and that was a relatively modest eruption. A super volcano could be extinction event if it is big enough.

Comment: Sifling uncreativity (Score 4, Insightful) 299

How does it stifle creativity? If you reuse copyright material you aren't being very creative.

Oh really? Go listen to Paul's Boutique by the Beastie Boys and say that again with a straight face. Huge chunks of that album are samples and remixes, and it is a rather famous example of how creative you can get reusing copyrighted material.

There are all sorts of works of art that are based off of using other people's creations in even more direct ways. Weird Al has been creating pop music parodies for decades that are based on other people's material, he seems pretty creative. Look at Johnny Cash's cover of the song 'Hurt', originally recorded by Trent Reznor. It was so good that Trent himself said that it wasn't his song anymore.And there are literally thousands more examples like these.

Saying that you cannot be creative by re-using other people's work is a very small minded view of art.

Comment: Fear of a dumb planet (Score 2, Interesting) 197

by TiggertheMad (#49523833) Attached to: Concerns of an Artificial Intelligence Pioneer
IAACWAIK (I am a coder with AI knowledge), and I don't fear any sort of sentient machine. I fear a lot of people. Perhaps we should get the dangerous people sorted out first before we start worrying about the sentient free roaming machines that don't exist yet and won't exist for many, many, years.

I mean Christ, what kind of retard is running around worrying about problems that aren't even real? This guy might as well be writing books about how to fight zombies or repel vampires and boogie-men. Entertaining fiction topics to be sure, but a real discussion topic? Elon Musk knows fuck all nothing about AI on the whole, and he is signing this letter because he knows first hand about killer AIs? Elon, you want to save some lives? Get back to making your fucking electric slot cars, because more people will die as a result of carbon induced climate change in the next 100 years than will die as a result of the cast of the movie 'short circut' going berserk.

Shit to be scared of: cancer, heart disease, auto-accidents.

Shit to not be scared of: killer asteroids, ebola, and oh yeah, and homicidal AIs.

People to think of as retards: Elon Musk

Comment: objective of the research: The perfect shuffle. (Score 2) 63

It can be proved empirically that this is a correct theory - the longer you shuffle cards, the more random sequence you have.

Not true. There is a limit to entropy of a collection of objects, and once you reach this limit, any change to the system can only to be a reduction in the degree of entropy in the system. Also, it is entirely possible, (if unlikely) that you can shuffle a randomized deck of cards into sequential order.

Comment: Shall we play a game? (Score 4, Interesting) 91

by TiggertheMad (#49465003) Attached to: Killer Robots In Plato's Cave
It seems to me that these weapons are morally equivalent to a land mine. A land mine is an autonomous weapon, that has the following logic: 'Is trigger depressed? If so, detonate'.

Putting more complicated logic on a robot armed with machine guns is pretty much the same thing. If you have morale problems with land mines, you probably should have the same problems with kilbots. (Also, expect the exact same classes of problems to occur).

Most civilized countries are realizing that landmines are rather deplorable weapons, it seems interesting that they would be ok with robotic weaponry...

Comment: p=mv, do the math... (Score 1) 74

by TiggertheMad (#49449929) Attached to: Amazon Gets Approval To Test New Delivery Drones

Is the less than 100 mph limit really necessary?

It seems reasonable. There needs to be some kind of weight/height/speed limitations.

Reasonable? I'd say its required. Consider what happens when a drone traveling at only 100 mph with a total mass of 10 lbs fails from 400 feet. Do you want to be under it when it lands? I am pretty sure that is gong to be a strait up fatality if it hits someone.....

Comment: HEY YOU KIDS, KEEP OFF MY COMPILER! AND LAWN! (Score 4, Insightful) 315

by TiggertheMad (#49442535) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How To Introduce a 7-Year-Old To Programming?
The perfect tool is whatever the kid is interested in. If you try to teach them how to write a game with Minecraft, and they want to write spread sheets, they are going to hate coding. Now, as parent post notes, Minecraft will probably hold most kids attention.

Figure out some fashion that code interacts with their favorite thing, and there is your in. Building basic web pages might be a start, or perhaps set up a command line application where they can play with string manipulation. There are many ways you can simplify complex tasks and projects with 'training wheels', ex: APIs and such to hide away complex stuff that isn't important to a beginner. Get them a really simple sandbox where they can change things and see the effects of their changes, and then get the hell out of the way. They will be better than you are in two weeks.

Comment: Rules are for jerks (Score 2) 489

by TiggertheMad (#49442025) Attached to: Reason: How To Break the Internet (in a Bad Way)
libertarians' fundamental thesis seems to be that anything that doesn't harm others freedom's and rights should be allowed. This is a fantastic belief, but in practice there are a lot of things you can do as an individual that can adversely affect society, and end up being regulated. If there is some stupid law on the books prohibiting practice 'X', it is quite likely that at one time someone was doing that very thing and that pissed off enough people that a law got passed.

On one hand, government trying to predict what sort of behaviors will need to be regulated seems like a bad idea, because you are asking some of the dumbest people on the planet (politicians) to try to predict the future. I generally like the idea of a reactive government, that only trys to fix things that actually become problems, so I would lean toward the libertarian model.

But, given the nature of corporations, I can saw with 100% confidence that if we do not pass laws forcing a level playing field, we will have all sorts of problems. The Internet to these people is nothing more than a brand new resource to be exploited in the most efficient way possible. Mind you, this isn't because the companies involved are corrupt, evil entities. This is simply because that is what capitalism encourages. Barring additional regulation, the most profitable company is the one most ruthlessly efficient at creating and selling a product. Nothing about capatialisim is geared toward what is good for the whole of society, just what makes money.

An intellectually honest libertarian will be willing to recognize that libertarianism is a utopian ideal (like most 'isims'), and that reality requires quite a lot of rules to keep the 1% of the world who are total assholes from screwing things up for the other 99%. This article seems to be written by idealists who don't live in the real world.

Comment: Not Securing America (Score 1) 212

"He is a good German..."

I believe the guy, at least partially. Probably a lot of NSA drones are honest, decent people that knew very little about all the dirty shit that the agency is pulling. In an organization that size you can't keep secrets very long unless you can compartmentalize information. There are probably a lot of low level people who work for the NSA because they believe in protecting America.

Of course that makes the small group(s) of filthy fuckers that are in the know and driving this stuff all that more guilty, for doing illegal shit in the first place, and then conspiring to cover it up. If I ran the DOJ, I would fire off a massive witch hunt to convict everyone in charge at the NSA with treason. Hang the lot of them, they have done more to damage US internal and external interests than Snowden could ever manage.

They are called computers simply because computation is the only significant job that has so far been given to them.

Working...