Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Vs Sports stadiums? (Score 1) 128

There is no way the amount of money cities waste on un-used technology coms anywhere close to the amount they waste giving away to sports teams for the prestige of having a sports team make money off of their citizens.

Cities should charge sports teams for the right to be known as the City's X, not the other way around.

Comment 2 for me, 2 for others (Score 1) 612

For others, I would create two charities: 1) Art foundation that provides housing to artists in a major city (probably Detroit, for various reasons), in exchange for art. Ideally, 10 years from now the foundation will be self-supporting by selling some of the art from the artists that happen to become famous. 2) Education foundation that provides free BOARDING school to children of high risk adults - i.e. homeless, drug addicted, criminal convictions. Because normal public school can't help the kids if their parents are the problem.

For me I would do the following: 1) Take a whole bunch of classes - how to do EVERYTHING. Dance, defend a client from a lawsuit, simple surgery, how to play a piano, how to build a car, how to carve a wooden boat. You name it, I want to learn it. 2) Creating a publishing house that makes the decisions on which new book to publish via a combination of crowd sourcing and AI, rather than the current system.

Comment BULLSH!Tq (Score 4, Insightful) 206

Basically, what they did here was say "Well, there won't be any laws or safeguards, so the worst possible thing that we can think of will happen, will happen.

I don't know all the laws and regulations we will create, but I absolutely guarantee you that unlicensed vehicles will NOT be allowed to drive around with no people and load of cargo, unless they picked up that cargo at a licensed and regulated facility (aka UPS, FedEx, Amazon, etc.). There will be sensors in non-licensed vehicles to make sure that if they have any cargo in them, they have to have a person in them at first. Licensed vehicles will most likely be airborne with very light cargo capacity at first (if you don't have a human, it makes more sense to fly).

No, these sensors will not be easy to counter.

And vehicles will also have hard coded restrictions on where they can go and can't go.

The vehicles will NOT even have a receiving antenna, not at first. At first they will require instructions to be made inside the car, with the door closed - and cancel them when the door opens. They will however broadcast their destination to be recorded by the police, but not be able to receive any radio commands.

And most importantly, it is already possible to JUST as much damage, simply by taking a stolen van full of explosives, parking it some place, and leaving it set to detonate in 20 minutes. The author of this paper is clueless about both the current level of risk we have and the level of risk we will accept in the future

Comment Re:Field Programmable Gate Array (Score 1) 93

Wow, you are really that foolish? Well, maybe you are a child. Let me explain how the real world works for you. Yes, you can google it - I did so. That's how I figured it out - and I put it on the thread so you know I did. But people do not google random things to see if they are interested in learning more about them. You only google something AFTER you decide you want to learn more about it.

When writing an article only a totally incompetent author leaves the subject of the article unclear. Because if you don't explain the subject, no on would BOTHER to google it. Why should Joe Shmoe take his time and effort to figure out what your article is about? That's not his job, it YOUR job.

The poster of this thread and the writer of the article did a horrible job. It's the equivalent of coding a 100,000 line application without bothering to put any comments in it at all.

Comment Re:Study is right, but needs more.. (Score 0) 165

Filtering coal plants does not help the miners, and doing so makes coal more expensive than any other kind of fuel - wind, solar, tidal, geothermal all are CHEAPER than filtered coal.

You are the only fool that thinks my world has nuke or coal.

Humans are really bad when it comes to comparing risks. We avoid dramatic things like terrorists, and accept subtle things like tobacco. Same thing with nukes and coal - comparing one thing that people are unreasonably afraid of (nukes) to an established and accepted risk is the simplest way to convince people that they are being foolish. It is not and never was an insistence on an either/or situation - that was in your head.

Comment Re:Study is right, but needs more.. (Score 2, Insightful) 165

No I am saying that human beings are really BAD at comparing risks. We have certain things we fear and over-react to (nuclear anything, terrorists, plane deaths), and other things we accept and ignore the risks (coal, tobacco, car deaths).

We have no business being afraid of nuclear power plants, anymore than we should be afraid of aircraft deaths. Whether or not we should take more actions to protect against coal, tobacco or cars is an entirely different matter.

Comment Re:Field Programmable Gate Array (Score -1, Offtopic) 93

FPGA is totally meaningless acronym. It could have meant "Female Professional Golfers Association" or "Fantasy Professional Gamers of America" (OK that was pushing it )

Field Programmable Gate Array is more than enough to get someone that is computer literate interested in it the tutorial

Comment Study is right, but needs more.. (Score 4, Interesting) 165

Basically, it should have compared it to coal, as coal releases more radioactivity than nuclear. Small bits of radioactive thorium are found in coal mines, and when you mine the coal, you release it from the entombed safety. Then when you burn the coal, you release even more into the atmosphere. The radioactivity risk in the immediate vicinity of a coal burning plant is significantly greater than that of all nuclear power plants. Coal miners and plant workers are more likely to die of cancer than uranium miners and nuclear power plant workers (note, this only applies to the US industry, other countries may have different rates due to different regulatory strengths.).

Comment Field Programmable Gate Array (Score 0, Flamebait) 93

Is the very first thing that both the post and the article SHOULD have said.

The fact that neither of them explained the acronym makes me question the value of information.

Because if you expect an article to tell you how to learn something, then you have to tell them what you are teaching, without having to google it.

Submission + - Almost no real women on Ashley Madison

gurps_npc writes: Ashley Madison claimed to have about 31 million men and 5.5 million woman enrolled. Those odds are not good for the men, 6:1. But unfortunately, most of those 'women' were fake. This researcher analyzed the data and found only 12,000 actual, real women using Ashley Madison. That means for every 7750 men, there were 3 women. There are reports that Ashley Madison paid people to create fake female profiles. Their website admits that 'some of the users may be their for "entertainment purposes"' The article itself is well written, including a description of the analysis.

A charitable person would say that Ashley Madison was selling a fantasy, not reality. But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just a thief stealing money from lonely, unhappy men.

Comment Sell the dream, not the need (Score 1) 413

How many people buy super fast cars then never go faster than 80 mph?

How many people buy high end "Sports Utility Vehicles", designed to go off road, through rivers, up mountains, then never leave the pavement - effectively using them like you would a minivan?

How many people buy convertibles and keep the top up all year long?

Cars are sold based on desire, not on need.

I personally would disconnect any antennae/radio function of a vehicle - it helps the car company track and control my car more than it helps me. But people buy what they want, not what they are going to actually use.

Comment Re:Precision (Score 1) 95

I strongly disagree with you. The only difference between buzzwords and jargon is to whom you are using them, they have nothing to do with the specificity - either way, it is about precise communication.

That is, sometimes you are trying to be more specific in order to avoid confusion, but sometimes you are trying to be specific to impress. Similarly, sometimes you are trying to be general - so as to be sure to include rare cases.

My second example - the use of the word "Enterprise" is a great case where business is intentionally being less specific, in order to be clear to their own salesmen and engineers.

Similarly, the word "Synergy" is a classic buzzword abused to the point of becoming a trope/ meme. In addition, it is neither overly general or overly specific, but is very clearly a buzzword. The problem is not of specificity as you claim, but in non-existence. That is, people thinking that anything can have synergy, when in fact it is rather rare.

Do you suffer painful elimination? -- Don Knuth, "Structured Programming with Gotos"