Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Action Required !! (Score 1) 369

Until basic common sense measures like these happen, then we can rightly conclude this is just another "climate change hysteria" study. If the government doesn't believe in their own studies, then it is wrong to use them to force actions on others.

You expect government to act sensibly?

And you propose we ignore scientific studies until governments take action?

Sounds like a recipe for doom.

Comment Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... (Score 3, Insightful) 52

Yeah, if you're a regular on Slashdot, it seems like we've been finding a cure for cancer and HIV for the last 20 years or so. Also, we will have a space elavator, fusion energy, flying cars and Linux on the desktop in just 5 more years!.

I realize this is amazingly complex stuff and that research takes time... but I really do hope that scientists are not just fishing for a Nobel price, and performing endless theoretical research without ever thinking about practical applications.

Comment We already have a great tool (Score 3, Informative) 127

Plants... they consume CO2, which seems to be the big issue in climate change.

How about projects to plant more plants in cities globally? Like forcing coal-powered power plants to surround their plant with plants? Plan to plant more plants in your plants.

Comment Re:Preach it brother (Score 1) 57

most people will elect to play something from the past 15 years rather than something from 40 years ago.

If you only look at the last 15 years, you will miss some great games, like "El Grande", and of course the classic, "Settlers of Catan" which was released in 1995.

Jeez, time passes quickly.

Comment Re:Linus Torvalds Isn't Looking 10 Years Ahead (Score 1) 108

Its probably worth mentioning, that the US is also no longer the richest country in the world by total GDP, when measured by purchasing power parity (PPP). It has been overtaken by China this year.

It is only the richest country in the world by total, nominal GDP.


GDP (nominal)

Comment Re:Linus Torvalds Isn't Looking 10 Years Ahead (Score 1) 108

FYI, per capita, the US is not the richest country in the world. Its about 10th place.

And if you factor out the wealthiest 2%, which in the US own almost half the country, and only consider average Toms, then the US would probably rank around 25th place.

And if you factor out how the US likes to spend tax money producing F-35 instead of reinvesting it into the neediest parts of the populace via social programs and welfare, then the US would probably rank around 30th place.

Comment Re:Software error ... (Score 1) 234

No, no, no, no, no! The concept of garbage collecting is a reaction to poor coding practices and reliance on it is laziness.

Not really. The concept of garbage collection is a simple one - if an object is no longer referenced anywhere, free the memory.
This makes perfect sense and also frees the developers mind from making sure everything is always deallocated. Thereby eliminating a huge amount of potential errors, such as premature memory deallocation.

But what many novice programmers don't realize is that you must still manage your memory in a garbage collected environment. Objects that are no longer needed have to be removed from collections - all those references must be cleared so that the memory will be freed.

So I agree with the second part:

Software engineers responsible for real-time, public safety software should be capable of managing memory in their code!

Comment Re:get the book (Score 1) 732

I do have to wonder. When politicians and corporations of the military industrial complex sink billions upon billions of US taxpayer money into their bloated, expensive defense contracts, with barely anything to show for it, does it have any consequences? No? Why not? Somebody must be responsible. Somebody should be accused of corruption, incompetence or whatever. At the very least, the corporation should be sued for not delivering on the contract, and forced to return as much of the money as possible.
Why doesn't it happen?

Comment Re:And they didn't (Score 1) 528

Indeed. It didn't have to be this way. There is nothing inherently wrong with advertising, but for some reason most ad makers seem to think it's a good idea to be as annoying as possible. Then they are surprised that people block their ads.

There are some cases of ads done right. For example ads on Google search results or in Gmail. Just some text, a link, and it is even marked as an advertisment. Some of these are even informative instead of sensationalist. Perfect.

As you say, I also make a point of avoiding products or brands from ads that were extremely annoying to me.

Comment Re:And they didn't (Score 5, Interesting) 528

Yeah. Advertising agencies only have themselves to blame for the fact that most people hate ads. It started with intrusive and annoying TV ads. They deem it necessary to raise the volume by 50% when the ads come up? They deem it necessary to drive a nail into your head by inserting an add when you least expect it in the middle of a scene? And they deem it necessary to fill ads with lies and ridiculous false promises of beauty, health and popularity?

Well fuck them. Now I fucking hate ads and it's all their fault because they annoyed the living shit out of me with their fucking bullshit ads and the increasingly aggravating way they presented them to me. Advertising agencies have trained me to abhor ads.

And the practice has continued on the Internet. Noisy, invasive, insecure and fucking annoying ads almost everywhere. I will do all I can to stop them from fucking with my head.

Comment What AI are we talking about? (Score 3, Interesting) 262

The first problem when arguing about the dangers or chances of AI is agreeing on what AI is even supposed to be. Laymen will most likely be referring to "strong AI", meaning, AI with human capabilities, such as creativity or even consciousness, whereas professionals will probably think of AI in more practical terms, as in a software that can solve a set of limited or very specific problems by making informed, "intelligent" decisions.
Today and in the foreseeable future, we will only get the latter, weak AI. People panicking about the dangers of AI usually have strong AI in mind. Professionals don't take them seriously because they know that strong AI is not even on the horizon.
Problem is that there are numerous ways even weak AI can go very, very badly. There was the big stockmarket crash some years ago, caused by automated trading algorithms. Think self-driving cars that have been hacked or have faulty programming. Think automated defense systems that get fed wrong data or malfunction.

These are the kinds of AI issues to worry about. The Asimov-style superhuman intelligence taking over is not something to be concerned about at the moment.

When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal