Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:I doubt it (Score 1) 35

Driving on a golf course is a relatively trivial problem to solve

For crying out loud .. nobody is looking at this for a fscking golf course:

As seen in a YouTube video, the carts transported 500 people along winding paths in public gardens in Singapore while autonomously navigating and watching for obstacles such as pedestrians and animals.

The carts picked up people at 10 stations in the gardens. They traveled at a maximum speed of only 24 kilometers per hour, so that the computers had time to process all the obstacles.

This has nothing to do with golf, and everything to do with smaller vehicles as a testbed for the damned technology.

I know nobody ever read the fscking article ... but at least read the fscking summary.

And if you honestly think golf carts are going to follow pre-defined routes to known locations on a golf course, you've never played much golf.

Comment Re:Like Tomato? (Score 4, Informative) 118

Well, if we're getting into the business of banning things on the basis of what they could be used for, let's start with rocks

You joke, but from TFA:

Under the rule proposed by the FCC, devices with radios may be required to prevent modifications to firmware. All devices operating in the 5GHz WiFi spectrum will be forced to implement security features to ensure the radios cannot be modified. While prohibiting the modification of transmitters has been a mainstay of FCC regulation for 80 years

In other words, this is something they've been doing for a very long time, and they are suddenly saying you can't modify things which impact transmitters. It's kind of the things the FCC has been doing for decades.

So while TFA says "yarg, teh open source and teh tinkering" ... in part it's the FCC reminding people there are long established rules in place for determining what you can do with a transmitting device.

If the Federal Rock Administration had been regulating rocks for 80 years, then your analogy might be bullshit.

But preventing making changes to a transmitting device is something they've been doing for a long time. It's not like they're newly asserting this authority, they're pointing out they've had it for decades.

Comment Re:Like Tomato? (Score 4, Insightful) 118

As purely a WAG ... my guess is things which radiate are tested and approved according to some form of standard for interference and the like.

Putting on a new firmware could cause the device to operate outside of those parameters, and would therefore be a non-conforming device.

It's not saying you can't put software on something you own. It's saying putting something onto a device which broadcasts can make changes you didn't expect.

As I said, that's purely a WAG, but it seems like the kind of thing within their mandate.

Comment Re:Economics isnt science. (Score 1) 101

There is a lot arm waving but hardly any coherent solutions.

Which, in fairness to Marx, is no different than any other economic worldview. They're all incomplete or flawed in their own ways by their very nature.

They all try to force the world to behave according to arbitrary "rules", which are mostly observations which don't account for nearly as much as they claim to.

Anybody who claims to have "coherent solutions" in any field of economics is mostly full of shit. I remain unconvinced it is possible to have "coherent solutions" ... merely a bunch of incoherent ideas which are so idealized as to be mostly wrong.

They all hand wave around everything, pretend it all works out in the end ... and they all utterly fail to do anything of substance. Because no matter how you try, the world doesn't give a crap about how elegant your theory is.

Comment Re:Ideology not reality ... (Score 1) 101

Sorry, this is exactly my point. Show us some empirical proof, or STFU. What's that? Don't have empirical proof? Then you don't have facts. You have ideology.

I'm no economist, but thinking about it, 'forced central bank interest rates' are not the cause for most bubbles I can think of.

Bubbles - Beanie baby type bubbles happen frequently, but are ultimately rather minor. Most people 'investing' in 'collectibles' are individuals limited to their own money. NOT caused by interest rates of any sort.
Housing Bubble - perhaps encouraged by low interest rates, but I'd argue that it was far more caused by government policies other than interest rates, to wit the 'orders' from the administration to Fannie and Freddie to get more people into homes. .COM bubble - the fallout of a 'gold rush' into an entirely new industry field.

Comment Re:Bandwidth over time (Score 1) 170

Starting on? Hell, I've had 4K for my TV for almost a year now and I consider myself a luddite at this point (of course that was an upgrade from a tube tv :-)

You're bleeding edge dude; the screens haven't yet reached 'significant' market penetration. Media availability is also somewhat limited.

You'll know they're mainstream when walmart starts stocking both the sets and movies for them.

Comment Re:Main street economists are charlatans (Score 2) 101

directing scarce resources and re-allocating mis-allocated resources (and resources do get mis-allocated all the time, but in a free market economy the mis-allocation leads to lack of profits that eventually leads to ceasing of that particular activity and for a great reason n - resources that are mis-allocated hurt the economy).

And this is the fundamental flaw in your argument.

Nothing is "mis" allocated, it is allocated where the people who control them put them.

That this fails to match up with your perfect theory isn't a problem with the random, selfish, and stupid shit people do. It's a problem with your model which says people will achieve the perfect outcome your flawed model predicts.

What you're saying is, if people will only behave according to how you believe they should, there would be perfect outcomes. And I hate to tell you, but that will never happen.

I say there is no such thing as perfect outcomes, there is no such thing as rational actors, and there is no collective goal or "proper" allocation of anything. Merely a bunch of greedy, selfish, irrational actors doing whatever the hell makes sense at the time, or what they've been hoodwinked into believing will yield perfect outcomes. Many of whom will utterly fail to play by any rules or with anything other than pure, shortsighted greed.

If your theory can't account for the randomness of the human animal, it's your theory which is defective. Because the human animal will simply NEVER do anything according to someone's theory which has perfect outcomes.

The notion of "they're doing it wrong because it doesn't match my ideology" is the problem here.

Comment Re:Ideology not reality ... (Score 3, Insightful) 101

Nobody can know exactly when a bubble will pop, but bubbles are created by malinvestments, and most malinvestments can be attributed to forced central bank interest rates, and central bank Open Market Operations.

Oh, look .. ideology pulled out of your ass and passed off as facts.

Blah blah blah.

Sorry, this is exactly my point. Show us some empirical proof, or STFU. What's that? Don't have empirical proof? Then you don't have facts. You have ideology.

Comment Ideology not reality ... (Score 5, Interesting) 101

Let's be clear: how you think economics is defined by your ideology, and most economics is bad math with unfounded assumptions arriving at un-supportable conclusions.

So, if you're the Chinese government and think you can manipulate markets to suit your beliefs, you'll be horribly mistaken. Likewise, if you subscribe to the ridiculous Austrian School of economics (which refuses to have empirical evidence), then you likewise believe your theory is so perfect it doesn't need to be validated.

Nobody has ever had any proof for "trickle down economics" other than they think it should work and it suits their ideology, but 30 years of actual real world data mostly shows it's utterly failed to work as planned.

Economics is useful to look at what came before, and understand some limited problems ... but in general many people believe once you try to use that to predict things, or influence outcomes you get into a level of complete bullshit and voodoo. Time and time again when people try to take action or set policy based on economics, it fails utterly.

And until economics is based on anything other than sketchy math and ideology, it can never be a real science or have much more meaning than something people use to defend their ideology. But since people never look at economics separated from their ideology, it will never happen.

Economics is mostly a tool to make it look like the things you believe should happen, based on how you want the system to behave, have any actual relationship with the outcomes you expect to achieve with policy. The problem is that is a lie.

But it sure as hell can't be called an objective science. First you have to believe in the ideology and then you believe in the methodology.

The problem is people like to believe that the ideology is objective reality, and that their observations are in fact rules. And that simply isn't true.

Comment Re:socks arent all malevolent (Score 1) 91

more attention needs to be lent to dealing with controversial articles on the RIAA, the trans continental partnership, and the nature of large entities that can afford to muddle their tracks. For example, how many edits to the Coca Cola wiki article have been made and by whom? What edits get made to pages on the gulf oil disaster and on Time Warners article

And you don't think pages like Barack Obama or George W. Bush are immune to these problems by political fanatics either? What about the religious fanatics that get into edit wars over theology, or the Wikipedia pages on Scientology? Frankly what I see for from these shills working for advertising agencies is trivial compared to the huge damage that a well invested fanatic on many other topics can do to Wikipedia articles, most of them not getting any sort of pay for their activities.

It also isn't the famous articles that are the real concern though. It is the articles that have perhaps two or three active editors that have ever worked on that article and then the article is hijacked to support a strong point of view. It might get caught if it is on somebody's active page watch list or somebody aggressively looking at recent changes, but mostly it will slip through the cracks and become mostly permanent to Wikipedia. This includes some rather substantive articles I might add, but by its nature is usually non-controversial (hence why so few people are bothering to edit it too).

Comment Re:Irony (Score 1) 91

That edit history is already built into the MediaWiki software and has been there for years. it is in fact one of the ways you can track down the activities of a user, and that edit history is for the most part even available to the general public. Here is the edit history of one of the more infamous Wikipedia editors of the past as an example.

Admins get some minor additional pieces of information, and can look up deleted pages (at least pages not visible to everybody) to review what might have happened in the past that got them on the bad side of another administrator or even police bad actions by admins themselves. It is tedious for even one admin to fight another admin (called wheel warring) but it can be done.

Your suggestion already exists.

Just because he's dead is no reason to lay off work.

Working...