Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Of course (Score 0, Troll) 26

by ShieldW0lf (#49142909) Attached to: OPSEC For Activists, Because Encryption Is No Guarantee

If I'm the only one who can unlock your encrypted communications, then it's in my best interest to have everyone encrypt their communications, because then, I'll be the only one with total situation awareness.

It won't be in any of your interests, of course, because you'll be handing me my advantage on a silver platter... but you're all far too shortsighted to pay attention to such things.

Of course Obama and the NSA want you all using strong encryption. Stupid of you to give them what they want, though.

Comment: Wasn't this the main point of "Agile"? (Score 1) 180

by hey! (#49142597) Attached to: The Programmers Who Want To Get Rid of Software Estimates

Find a compromise between predicting too much of the future and just managing a project by the seat of your pants; get into a rhythm where you check how good your estimations and learn to get better at them.

Of course you can't develop every project this way; I've used Agile and it's worked for me. I've used waterfall and it's worked for me too. You have to try to be sensible; you can't completely wall of other people's need to know when you'll accomplish certain things, nor can you build a solid plan based on pure speculation. You have to have an intelligent responsible way of dealing with future uncertainty, a plan to cut it down to size.

I've even had the good fortune at one point of winning a $750,000 grant to build a system for which no firm requirements had been established. It was kind of an uphill-flowing waterfall: we knew how long it would take us and how much it would cost but we had no firm idea of what we were supposed to build. If that sounds like a recipe for disaster, it was; but my team was *successful* and built a product which was still be used and supported over a decade after the grant finished.

What's missing from many programming estimates is honesty. It's a matter of ethics; you can't take people's money and say maybe someday you'll deliver something useful to them. People don't have unlimited time and money to accomplish all the things that need to be done in the world. It's an honor being entrusted with people's aspirations, and a serious responsibility. It's hard, even nerve-wracking, but you've got to care enough about the impact of your planning on other people to make the effort to do the very best job you can.

And what I've found is that if you do make the effort you can do a surprisingly good job of estimating a project if it's in an area and with technologies you're reasonably familiar with. If you look closely your specific predictions will often be way off, but if you care enough to be brutally honest the pleasant surprises tend to balance out the unpleasant ones.

Comment: Re:Lots of corporations wanted this badly (Score 1) 481

by SuperKendall (#49142183) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

No, it's several pages of regulations, and then hundreds of pages of "forebearances", describing how the ways the FCC is closing not to enforce some rules - at this time. That way if anyone gets uppity they can bring down the hammer.

Read the FCC commissioner interview for more information.

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 386

by Penguinisto (#49141929) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

Anyone can mine quotes, but unless you provide the context for each, you have no strength in your argument.

I did. I provided the book, chapter and verse for each, and you can read all the context you need.

Fair enough - you did cite the sources. That said, you still have a problem (which you have not resolved), and I should've pointed it out earlier: none of what you quoted is contradictory or an endorsement of what you intimate.

Mark 10:21 was a challenge to a wealthy man, who subsequently failed said test. Luke 14:26 is a statement as to how you should prioritize Christianity over the objections/demands of anyone else, including your own family. 1 Timothy 2:12 is your closest to an actual argument, but it only concerns the role of women in the church itself (and the reason why, for instance, there are no female priests in the Catholic Church). 1 Peter 2:18 was written when slavery was common, and yet it held/holds true - it also aligns perfectly with the Gospels, in which all Christians are to love their enemies, be kind to those who harm you, work the extra mile, etc.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum: All of what you quoted can be followed without contradiction *or* violation.

Here's the fun part - applying it to robots; the first two are superfluous, since robots have no property rights or family, though the lessons could still apply. The third fails because gender in that context is a human-specific thing, and so robots could simply relegate that as a human-only thing. The fourth is the only relevant verse you provided, and I'd damned sure want a robot to hold to it.

Nice try on the pre-emptive "cherry pick" charge BTW, but the burden is now on you to prove that I did such a thing. ;)

Comment: Re:Simple methodology (Score 2) 180

by Penguinisto (#49141567) Attached to: The Programmers Who Want To Get Rid of Software Estimates

One would hope that a good manager would have enough practical and direct experience in writing software to at least come up with a half-decent estimate, no?

Most shops I've seen lately have the scrum masters spend a part of a planning session simply asking individual contributors "Here's a rough outline of the proposed project [...] now how long do you think doing that will take", and they come up with an estimate adjustment from there... most of the time, it's fairly close. PMs pad things a little of course, but the results tend to be fairly close.

YMMV of course... depends on who is posting the final estimates - is it devs, or is it the MBAs.

(If it's the latter, run like hell.)

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 386

by Penguinisto (#49141357) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

Funny how all Christians claim that their path is the original path, and everybody else has perverted it, yet they all pick and choose the pieces they want to believe in.

I never said that 'my' path is the "original path" - I said that humankind has perverted the original ideal; nobody escapes this statement.

Also, I noticed that in your haste to quote scripture, you made a rather large mistake.

Anyone can mine quotes, but unless you provide the context for each, you have no strength in your argument.

Comment: Lots of corporations wanted this badly (Score 2) 481

by SuperKendall (#49140595) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

it's what the populace wants, what the corporations didn't

All sorts of corporations wanted this passed.

It's 300 pages. Does what *you* wanted take 300 pages to express? No? HMM.

Good luck with that, as the saying goes. I am really looking forward to you all finding out what has really happened today.

Comment: There is one major entity - Apple (Score 4, Insightful) 93

by SuperKendall (#49139983) Attached to: Schneier: Everyone Wants You To Have Security, But Not From Them

The fact that there is really no major entity working to keep our data safe for ourselves and ourselves alone

Apple does this. Look at HealthKit for example, all data is stored locally, Apple doesn't mine it. They allow you to control who has what access to specific parts of the data.

It's not exactly true of all data, but Apple tries to give you specific control of data where it can.

The reason why Apple does this and other companies do not is simple - Apple actually makes money selling hardware. Google and Facebook have no revenue except what they can extract from you data, so they have totally different motivations.

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 386

by Penguinisto (#49139735) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

A very real problem for the religious folks is that their purported creator seems to refuse to communicate with his (her?) creations.

It's not as simple as you surmise. As a Christian, I don't perceive that God stops by and literally vocalizes "...dude, you need more beer in the fridge! No, I'm okay, it's just that this week was a monster what with the whole planetary re-org over by Praxis IV, but you don't want to hear about that, promise. So how about those Trail Blazers last week?" Instead, the communication that does occur is a lot more ephemeral and IMHO a form of meta-communication, and it doesn't even involve presence at times.

If you think about it, communicating with the Almighty is a lot more subtle and complex than most folks realize - some never do. Human technology simply does not have the means to record the common, everyday stuff that most folks experience in their lifetime, and saints/prophets/saviors/miracles are very few and far between. It took Mother Teresa a very long time before she came to the realization, and if anybody deserved to have a straight-up chat with Him while she was in this world...

I do agree though - anyone who tells me "God spoke to me last night, and said..." is going to be met by me with not just a grain of salt, but a whole damned block of it.

TL;DR - not every Christian walks around claiming to have a two-way communication line open to the Divine. I daresay the majority of us claim no such thing.

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 2) 386

by Penguinisto (#49139587) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

Religion, in general though, is not just about 'who created who', but comprises an entire moral, philosophical, historical, and metaphysical structure.

This is true... and in this case, if robots are going to have any sort of religion, Christianity ain't a bad way to go (mind you: I mean it as originally proposed, not as perverted by humanity since.)

On the other hand, Isaac Asimov covered this very nicely in I, Robot (in the book, not the abortion of a movie.) The specific short story within the book is here.

Comment: Human Intelligence and Religion - your bias shows (Score 1) 386

by SuperKendall (#49139537) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

coupled with the option to subordinate reasoning to that preference upon occasion

I've always found it odd that people who dislike region cannot imagine who faith in something unknowable can live side by side with a rational mind... indeed, if you are truly rational than you have to admit, at least, you do not know if God is real or not.

I'm not really religious myself but I recognize that a large number of famous scientists through history has been, and do not look down on people who are religious, because in every other way they are just as intelligent and rational as anyone.

Comment: Dyson Vs. "Climatologist" (Score 1) 350

by SuperKendall (#49138811) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

Dyson: "theoretical physicist" who understands the movement of air well enough to make a portable cyclone you can move about your house.

Climatologist: Understands the entire workings of the climate so well that they have been unable to form a single model that correctly predicts future behavior of the Earths climate in two decades of trying; constantly claims it's because of some new factor they seemed to have overlooked, claims they know everything THIS TIME.

In practice, Dyson is far less theoretical than any climatologist.

Optimization hinders evolution.

Working...