Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Friendliness (Score 1) 367 367

which will entice any superintelligence to convert all matter on Earth (and then, the universe) to computronium. If the AI is not perfectly friendly, humans are unlikely to survive that conversion.

I believe there was a paper written on a similar topic, by a one W. Rhinoceros, about the dangers of the rise of human intelligence. He also believed his kind would not survive the conversion - if I recall correctly - to small, decorative cups.

Comment: Re:This was always going to happen (Score 1) 288 288

reality is skewed by Corporations creating laws to benefit themselves. Thus proving that Government should not be involved in economics, since the moment it is, it is corrupted by its own involvement.

Wow that's a leap. Just because there is corruption is politics, your conclusion is government should not be involved in economics. That's clearly an argument made up to support a bias you clearly already have. No, the solution is pretty simple - take corporate money out of politics. It is bleeding obvious that since parties now need $millions to operate, they become beholden to the companies whose "donations" allow them to survive. The whole thing is dysfunctional and only getting more so.

Government must be involved in economics, as they can make decisions for the good of the *entire country*, regardless of who has the most money. That is how it should be. However that function has been corrupted beyond recognition, due to parties now being dependent on corporate money, like a drug addict needing bigger and bigger hits until something gives.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 1) 401 401

Europe is more important than the life of a single human or indeed of whole generations, but small folk do not have the scope to understand this.

Interesting point of view, considering Europe is made up of lots of single human beings, and would not exist but for each generation of them. Are you really proposing that the set of standards to which a nation adheres is a completely separate issue to those its people wish for?

Comment: Re:Why PHP Won (Score 1) 281 281

Hello world in PHP:

        Hello world!

No Bullshit Boilerplate (TM), no needing 5KLoC of code and configuration, no application server to babysit 24/7, no need for catalina+tomcat+jakarta+jre+struts+hibernate+Xmxwtfbbq16GB, just load one module and every single customer sharing the server can use it... No need to understand the CGI protocol, no need to understand the HTTP protocol, no need to understand HTML even.

So? You realise you've just perfectly described classic ASP, which was released in 1996, a year before PHP, which was officially released in 1997.

Apart from that, your "hello world" example is not a PHP code file, it's a plain text file. Describing a file with no php code as an example of php is being disingenuous.

Comment: Re:Okay, why are you all being so tough on Yahoo? (Score 1) 176 176

their email sucks

Depends how you use it. Yahoo have one of the best systems for creating throwaway email addresses, I've been using them for years and have accumulated around 70 of them. Their UI gets more cumbersome and slow with each fab new design iteration, but I don't check email online, I use POP down to Thunderbird.

Except that the POP account is Gmail, as Gmail has the best spam detection, but for some reason an utterly useless alias system (some email forms don't even accept "+" signs). So my Yahoo account, with the great aliases, forwards to the Gmail account, which then comes down to Thunderbird on my laptop, while still letting me check emails on the go with the Gmail app.

You don't have to use the services the way they'd prefer you to. The only time I visit mail.yahoo.com.au is to add another email alias. Works great, I like it.

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293 293

> what is under debate is the balance between natural climatic variation and human CO2 emission

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

"About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere."

Here again you can see that we are contributing more than what the natural Carbon Cycle can absorb, which is the problem. The issue is NOT how much CO2 humans produce vs how much nature produces. The issue is that our added emissions tip the scale and the Carbon Cycle cannot compensate any longer. I hope you can re-think your position to understand the distinction between this and what you are saying.

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293 293

> My understanding is [...] As far as I can tell [...]

Kudos for being honest that those parts are just your opinion / your understand. So I skipped those bits, as I doubt you're qualified to reliably inform me on the topic.

> No one is denying the scientific effect of atmospheric CO2, or that the Earth is warming - what is under debate is the balance between natural climatic variation and human CO2 emission

So you concede the reality and importance of climate change, and that CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the major contributors, yet somehow want to debate "cause". This implies your only difficulty is with the idea that human activity has been the major contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere, right? Well, that's easily fixed, allow me to direct you to the simple answer:

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

TL;DR: Yes natural CO2 is emitted, but it also *naturally absorbed*. It is a cycle, called the "Carbon Cycle". The problem is this: *Human emissions create an IMBALANCE between what is emitted what is absorbed*. Get it now? It's not about "how much is sent UP by us vs nature", it's about how we send up an EXCESS that cannot be absorbed back into the cycle.

> what is under debate is the balance between natural climatic variation and human CO2 emission

As you can see, no; it is not under debate. Like most in your camp, it is only under debate in your own mind, probably because you have only heard the rhetoric from other sources and not really understood the issues at all. Someone probably said to you "this is crap because nature sends up FAR more CO2 than humans do!" and that's all you heard. But it's a false, deceptive, pathetic argument, meant to mislead in order to allow companies to keep polluting. As such, it is also an immoral argument and those pedalling it should feel ashamed for contributing to ignorance and quite possibly future misery.

Comment: Re:Controversial because? (Score 1) 284 284

> Want better teachers? Increase pay and better teachers will enter the profession.

Funny how some people claim that, when it comes to CEOs, high salaries are necessary to attract the best talent, but refuse to apply the same rationale to other professions like nurses, teachers, etc. Oh yes, doctors' and lawyers' salaries must also be high enough to attract the best people, but teachers - no, no, their profession doesn't work that way for some reason.

Comment: Re:Try again... 4? (Score 1) 226 226

> I'd say it's pretty fucking obvious why users think music is free. The industry is presenting it that way.

Firstly, no, people don't think music is free, unless you're standing next to a busker or at a venue playing what they paid for to play. Everyone knows commercial music is commercial.

Secondly, by your reasoning, giving people samples of something makes everyone believe all the rest of that thing is also free.

Remember Kazaa back in 2001? Nobody thought they had a right to free music until Kazaa got plastered all over the news and everyone discovered they could be naughty kids and get stuff for free. The concept has stuck ever since - mainly because it's still easy to do with any torrent program. People love getting free stuff if they can, no matter what it is, that's just human nature. As long as it's easy.

If anything, companies giving away free music is a *response* to the how torrenting has presented music to people as free.

Comment: Re:A contrary opinion (Score 1) 359 359

> I have much more meaningful discussions on G+ than I do FB, partly because the number of followers on G+ is less, so less crap.

It sounds like those conversations are with people you don't know. Which is odd, as FB an G+ are centred around networks of people who know each other. Hence the G+ invite-only thing. If you want to have meaningful conversations with people you *don't* know, the Internet has been providing that since it started (and BBSs before that). You already have it here on /. There's also Reddit. Heck, there are things called "forums" all over the place, which served as social networks decades before "social networks" came along.

I don't think G+ provides anything new in the way of meaningful discussions with strangers who share interests. The internet's had that covered in thousands of ways for a long time.

Comment: Re:Useful in education (Score 1) 358 358

> some ridiculous ad immediately preceding a listening.

For Firefox or Chrome, use the AdBlock Plus addon.

> I'd also love to make the scourge of autoplay go away somehow

For Chrome, google "stop html5 autoplay" there are a couple of addons for that.

I use Adblock Plus in Firefox and never see ads in YouTube, ever. It's a must-have addon to bring sanity to the Web.

Comment: Re:Define "Threatened" and "Unwelcome" (Score 1) 765 765

> Why do women constantly get to claim they feel uncomfortable and expect the world to rush in and see to it that reality meets with their expectations?

Same reason racist jokes are not acceptable - after hundreds of years of conflict, hate and discrimination based on race.

Same reason antisemitism is a big deal - the deaths of millions of people.

So think about how women have been treated over TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS by men. Should we be somewhat conscious of that past? I think so.

We don't go around saying to black people, or gay people, "look it's all fine now, hey a black president, just move on!" So why do we think women should just suddenly be ok with everything and men don't have any responsibility for making them feel comfortable, welcome and safe? We do, simply because of history. Women have been treated a lot worse than blacks and jews and gays put together, over a much longer period of time, and still are.

Even if you think history doesn't count, just considering that women still don't get paid equally to men, makes any argument such as yours null and void.

Comment: Re:2017 (Score 1) 222 222

> My guess is that after this sequel comes out, we'll be trying to 'unsee it' and waxing poetic about how original and thought provoking the original was, and how flat, and full of fail this film is.

The tragedy is, it's obvious that if they really cared about these movies, they wouldn't even attempt to make sequels. They don't care, they just see the sequels as bankable. Producing soul-destroying sequels to original masterpieces still makes lots of money, as Lucas very effectively revealed. The fact they're doing a sequel at all means they don't care, which is a shame. As such, it deserves to be shunned, but it won't be.

At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.

Working...