Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Comment Re:Wrong people to strip (Score 1) 314

[citation needed]

In fact I'll save you the trouble, people have studied this and found the exact opposite.

While I agree with you, it's rather ironic that you started your post with "citation needed" but then made a counter-statement that isn't supported with any citation.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 1) 169

There used to be a web page called "Your Eyes Suck at Blue". You might find it on the Wayback machine.

You can tell the luminance of each individual channel more precisely than you can perceive differences in mixed color. This is due to the difference between rod and cone cells. Your perception of the color gamut is, sorry, imprecise. I'm sure that you really can't discriminate 256 bits of blue in the presence of other, varying, colors.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 5, Insightful) 169

Rather than abuse every commenter who has not joined your specialty on Slashdot, please take the source and write about what you find.

Given that CPU and memory get less expensive over time, it is no surprise that algorithms work practically today that would not have when various standards groups started meeting. Ultimately, someone like you can state what the trade-offs are in clear English, and indeed whether they work at all, which is more productive than trading naah-naahs.

Comment Re:What's the real problem? (Score 1) 194

For security purposes, it's not unreasonable to suggest that Mr. Big Picture Strategy Guy not be given read/write access to everything he is expected to be planning; that makes his credentials unbelievably valuable to an attacker and if he is in the position of needing to twiddle individual configurations all the time the organization hasn't actually made him the Big Picture Strategy Guy; but widespread read access would be a much harder request to reasonably deny: Anyone who is supposed to be strategizing needs to be able to see the world; and forcing him to wait 48 hours and work from a secondhand report compiled by minions every time he has a question about what the world looks like now is going to waste a lot of everybody's time.

Unless his mandate is strictly "Design us a new system so we can forklift upgrade this whole goddamn place!"(which would be deeply satisfying; but legacy infrastructure never dies that easily); expecting him to work in a black box is unrealistic; but he doesn't necessarily need(or even want to be stuck with) the ability to actually commit his proposed changes to every last widget out there.

Comment Re:Isn't this supposed to be the FBI's job? (Score 1) 84

Isn't the FBI supposed to be trying to track down the person responsible for causing Katrina?

Iran has repeatedly blamed the US for causing various natural disasters that have befallen that country. Apparently the FBI knows something we don't...

Comment Wait until the terrorists get hold of this tech. (Score 1) 179

It would be useful both for disrupting "business as usual" that they don't like and herding crowds into range of a more lethal device.

I can imagine several of them being flown into, and triggered in, sessions of a legislature that authorized them. But I somehow doubt that would actually happen, even in tyrannical foreign regimes. If the legislature is giving the tyrant and his security forces what they want, why use it on them? And if the opposition can get them in there with "less than lethal" weapons packages, "more than lethal" would be even easier, and have a more lasting effect on future legislation. (Realpolitik is a bitch.)

Comment Re:The problem with neural networks (Score 2) 44

Well, I think that the standards for driving tests could use some modification; but I was actually aiming at exactly the opposite point: There isn't any particular reason to believe that we need to, or will, demand that machines that control vehicles be submitted to some sort of profound understanding and formal verification, given that we accept black-box testing(and pretty shoddy testing at that) for human operators.

The initial ,lobbying might be a fairly ghastly pain; but I see no reason why there would be any long-term resistance to complex systems(neural network or otherwise) that are effectively beyond human understanding; so long as they pass black box tests of their abilities. I say this both because that's what we do when dealing with people; and because, in practice, even today's tech is complex enough that effectively nobody outside of very specialized software dev and test outfits knows what the hell is going on; and people basically accept that, because the alternative involves being restricted to radically simpler technology or radically more expensive tech support.

Comment Re:The problem with neural networks (Score 1) 44

I certainly wouldn't want to be the one leading the charge to get this approved; but we currently let neural networks drive cars after a relatively pitiful 'black box' verification where we subject them to maybe 30 minutes, 45 at most, of approximately real-world stimuli and then evaluate their responses.

This arrangement does end up with ~30,000 fatalities a year; but seems to enjoy broad support.

Comment Re:The elephant in the room (Score 1) 173

Aside from the question(which is important; but not directly relevant to this post) of whether or not the pre-feminist situation was ethically tenable; I think that there are some complications that your description of the economic situation doesn't include.

Female labor force participation has never actually been particularly minimal: women(and children) were a staple of factor workforces from the start of the industrial revolution; and the 'piecework' and 'putting-out' distributed domestic production of various goods were also heavily dependent on women and children. Plus the effect of domestic labor that isn't counted as labor market participation; but which effectively replaces demand for some goods and services that would otherwise be produced by people in the labor market(if mom is cooking and mending at home, your consumption of new clothes and restaurant-prepared food is going to be more limited, as likely will be your demand for housecleaning services and the like).

It is true that women's labor market participation was often more tenuous and less protected('maternity leave' tended to be you getting fired); but between young women newly entering the labor market and mothers of older children re-entering it(sometimes with those children) it was still quite substantial. The single-income household(especially as a blue-collar phenomenon) was only ever on the table because of the period of relative strength enjoyed by organized labor(which was instrumental in raising the earning potential of male blue collar workers) and 'Progressive' reformers pushing against child labor, for mandatory universal education, and against the neglect of children whose parents had to go back to work while they were still very young.

Absent those changes, factory work would likely still be a family affair, as it definitely was earlier in its development; and single-income households would really only be even an option for the relatively wealthy and skilled and/or educated.

As for the annihilation of the blue-collar sole breadwinner; it is undeniable that it has occurred. However, it's worth looking at whether those jobs/wage levels were lost because of increased availability of female workers; or whether the causes were elsewhere and the increased female workforce participation was a compensatory measure to attempt to salvage overall household income: I'm open to discussion on the matter; but I'm inclined to go with the latter. Think of the sectors where the relatively high paying, largely male, blue collar work used to be. Did those sectors see a pattern of increased hiring of women and wages sliding with increased supply; or did they mostly just disappear with offshoring and outsourcing, or face substantial declines in real wage as the power of labor unions has withered?

Among poor and unskilled workers, the big shift hasn't been Rosie the riveter stealing your factory job, it has been the fact that (mostly lousy) 'pink collar' retail and service industry jobs can't really be offshored, while historically desirable blue-collar sectors have just been gutted. It's actually among the comparatively wealthy and well educated where women's employment gains have occurred through actually getting jobs in historically male fields; and those are the people who are more likely to see marriage and family formation as desirable(though likely to defer it because getting 'a good education' is a process that sure isn't getting any shorter).

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Working...