Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

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: ALL obsessions are dangerous (Score 1) 175

by mi (#49379543) Attached to: Why America's Obsession With STEM Education Is Dangerous

An obsession with "humanities" is just as dangerous as the one with engineering.

But the one obsession to rule them all is that with idea, that the government needs to step in and ensure everybody is doing, what the government (currently) considers best. It not only robs the citizens of freedom to decide for ourselves and our children, it also leads to danger and lost lives.

Consider the earlier change of government's doctrine to the exact opposite direction: for decades fat used to be bad for you, but not any more — now it the sugar, that's evil — how do they tell the last dying diabetic, it was all a mistake?

We are now collectively executing a similar pivot from "humanities" to engineering, for better or worse. But the underlying assumption remains: were it not for the omniscient and benevolent government officials, the adorable (mostly) individual slobs they've got for citizenry wouldn't learn or do anything to improve their own lot themselves.

Can we get rid of this obsession, please? Then we wouldn't need to worry about the others so much...

+ - SCOTUS: GPS Trackers Are a Form of Search and Seizure->

Submitted by schwit1
schwit1 (797399) writes "If the government puts a GPS tracker on you, your car, or any of your personal effects, it counts as a search—and is therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court clarified and affirmed that law on Monday, when it ruled on Torrey Dale Grady v. North Carolina, before sending the case back to that state’s high court. The Court’s short but unanimous opinions helps make sense of how the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, interacts with the expanding technological powers of the U.S. government.

The only theory we discern [...] is that the State’s system of nonconsensual satellite-based monitoring does not entail a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That theory is inconsistent with this Court’s precedents.


Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Isaac Asimov: (Score 1) 97

by mi (#49378679) Attached to: Robots4Us: DARPA's Response To Mounting Robophobia

yeah, given that we're not any closer to an AI that would NEED those three laws

The robots Asimov imagined (whatever their brain) did not have to be bound by the three laws. They were deliberately designed that way.

And that's exactly the complain — the brains we currently devise are not being built those hard limits.

they don't make any choices nor do they ponder the choices or have any capability to make a choice.

Yes, the "syntactic" ones do not. But we are on the verge of real ("semantic") AI, and those better have some limits built-in, or some nasty predictions might materialize instead of Asimov's comfortable robot-assisted world.

Comment: Re:Psychology is bullshit (Score 1) 349

And yet you have not explained in any of your posts why I don't know anything about psychology despite being challenged to do so in EVERY SINGLE POST I HAVE DIRECTED AT YOUR STUPID ASS... which is interesting because the burden has always been upon you to back your stupid position up with so much a fucking argument.

And you won't because you know I'll pull your balls out by your throat if you even TRY it. You can't win this argument. You're defending a pseudo science.

You won't present an argument though... because you're an intellectual coward. You say some bullshit and then when called on it run away. fuckwit.

Comment: Re:idiots will lose (Score 2) 132

by Karmashock (#49377985) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Who's Going To Win the Malware Arms Race?

Right with you on the javascript thing. I use noscript passively everywhere. The internet is just a nicer place when random javascript has to have permission to run at all.

I only run what I have to run.

I do the same thing with cookies. If a site doesn't need cookies then I don't let it store them on my machine. And third party cookies? ha. Basically never. I go through most of the internet like a ghost. They can track my IP I guess but that is a far cry from loading me up with tracking cookies or insane amounts of nested javascripts.

Have you ever seen how they're set up? They put one inside another inside another inside another. They're like those fucking russian dolls only worse. You'll have five or six nested inside of one script and then each of those could have two or three scripts inside of it and so on. It is insane. There needs to be some sort of passive standard that limits scripts to the host domain. I don't understand why you'd run foreign scripts. There's no reason for it. ANd if you REALLY need to, then fine... let people right click something to add an exception but if most people don't do that the web admins will craft less retarded sites... and hopefully the ad people will be less obnoxious.

Comment: Correlation and Causation (Score 1) 293

by Karmashock (#49377867) Attached to: Poverty May Affect the Growth of Children's Brains


Causation and correlation. What they have here is CORRELATION... not causation. They have nothing that suggests being richer makes your brain bigger. The very idea that they have misinterpreted their data this badly makes me not want to live on this planet in and of itself.

What complete fucking idiots. Seriously. Retards. I suppose they're probably poor, which is why they're stupid.

What their "study" found was some correlation between brain size and wealth. First, brain size doesn't actually correlate with intelligence. There are some people with giant brains that are complete idiots. Literally retarded. And there are some people with abnormally little brains for humans that are quite intelligent. In gross terms having a chipmunk brain is going to require a similarly limited intelligence but small variances in brain size do not infer greater intelligence. Male brains for example are almost all larger than female brains yet we wouldn't say women are less intelligent.

In any case, even if we are talking about intelligence, the issue is correlation and not causation. And in that case, it is possible that the wealthier bloodlines are wealthier because they're more intelligent not more intelligent because they're wealthier.

As to these people presuming to suggest social policy on this basis... allow me to laugh derisively in their stupid faces.

*rolls eyes*

Comment: Re:Psychology is bullshit (Score 1) 349

So again, you're not explaining your position.

You're just saying I'm a rhinoceros over and over again. And I ask for some evidence or logic to support that position and you say "because you are"... again and again.

That is not how you have a constructive conversation. How can you be literate enough to form sentences but be so ignorant that you don't know how to form "thoughts"... I mean... this is fundamental. You are ignorant of things that should have been educated before you were taught to read.

Comment: Re:Perhaps there should be fewer papers (Score 1) 61

by Karmashock (#49377393) Attached to: Hoax-Detecting Software Spots Fake Papers

It exists only in your mind.

I have nothing but respect for those that go through a PhD program and I have nothing but respect for the education and the disciplines involved... so long as the people involved in them have respect for them as well. There are examples of fraud and I have no respect for them.

The mere fact that I am arguing against you so strenuously here proves that you misunderstood my intentions. If I did feel that way, then I would agree with your position... right? And yet I don't... which means that clearly wasn't the message I was trying to send which means you're wrong.

I know I know... you like strawmen... but they're logically unsupportable so that's just too bad.

In any case, you're not interested in a constructive discussion but in some little emotional crusade. You are neither informed nor interesting. And lacking both I can't see why anyone would want to talk to you about anything.

Good day.

+ - US Museums Outnumber Starbucks And McDonald's Combined->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post reports, "There are roughly 11,000 Starbucks locations in the United States, and about 14,000 McDonald's restaurants. But combined, the two chains don't come close to the number of museums in the U.S., which stands at a whopping 35,000. So says the latest data release from the Institute of Museum and Library Services, an independent government agency that tallies the number and type of museums in this country. By their count the 35,000 active museums represent a doubling from the number estimated in the 1990s.""
Link to Original Source

Good day to avoid cops. Crawl to work.