Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: (Score 1) 184

that's called taxes, moron, which all people are required to pay to society to keep it running

you can disagree with how your money is spent, that's fine. then vote for someone who will spend it in another way. but you don't get to make up on your own how much you owe according to your dimwitted uneducated "ideas"

money doesn't magically get in your bank account, dependent only on you, as if you live in an island. in fact, money is nothing more than an abstract value of human society itself. money only exists in the context of a human society, and is directly valuable in reflection of how well run that society is. money for broken down societies where no one pays taxes is worthless, inflation ridden junk. by your thinking, that's what you want your money to be: junk. can you eat your money in an isolated cabin in the woods where you never go to town? but you want to keep your money for yourself, and not give a portion to keep the society running in which your money actually means anything. this is simply revealing how fucking stupid you are about this topic

luckily, no one sane is going to let a stupid douchebag like yourself or the other puerile crackptos like you prevail on this notion, because we like being rich, and we don't morons like yourself making us poor

again, remedial education: your income depends upon a well functioning society. if no one maintains that society, your income shrinks, along with everyone else's. therefore, you must contribute in order to keep society functioning. understand loser?

and, indeed, if you're too stupid or selfish to understand this basic fact of your existence, then yes, men with guns should be sent to take from you what you owe, you freeloading asshole. and if you shoot back, drop your ignorant useless ass dead, please, and liquidate what you own to pay what you owe, the world a better place with one less stupid freeloading loser

Comment: Re:Educational software (Score 1) 184

the base assumption is that we are dealing with human beings, not factory specifications

there is no civil disagreement between two valid opinions here, there is acceptance of the obvious on my part and a quasireligious blindly exuberant faith in technology on your part that is ruinously insane

let us hope you or anyone who thinks like you never gets near a classroom. those poor kids

everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but no one is entitled to their own facts. you can not educate a human being from an AI which at best is limited to whatever crude specs you fill it in with, in whatever limited timeframe and context, it can never make up for the complex interplay and social feedback of a real human being in the moment

i have no respect for you and your position as a respectful disagreement depends upon both parties acknowledging basic facts and reality beforehand, which you do not

at best, you need a remedial education, ironically, on the basics of human social interaction and information transmission before it can be said you have a respectable, informed opinion on the subject matter

adios, starry eyed cotton candy head futurist

stick to science fiction fantasy please

you're a harmless nutjob at best, and damaging to children's development at worst

Comment: Re:Educational software (Score 1) 184

we should adopt the finnish model, they have one of the best if the not the best education system in the world

and your denigration of the prussian model is correct, but your lesson form that is counterintuitive. i'm certain the zeal for the mass production successes of the 1800s informed its development in ways that should not be celebrated... so your conclusion is we should pursue automation and remove the teacher from decision making even more? i'm not sure you have thought that out completely

we should never depend on algorithms to analyze and proscribe any model of learning for any student. it is absolutely impossible for such an algorithm to do a better job than a moderately involved, competent teacher, who should be the only one involved in any decision making in any capacity for any student. technology is wonderful as a supplementary tool in many ways, but it must be a teacher behind the what, when, where of how that is invoked

i cannot understand someone who thinks an algorithm, any algorithm, can do better than a decent teacher in a classroom. such a belief defies reason and only tells us about your unbridled technophilia. you really need to rethink what avenues of society are and aren't applicable for improvement by automation and technology

i can think of one parallel that is instructive here: compstat form the 1980s and 1990s that saw the USA break the back of an intense crack ridden crime wave

but the technology was only used to improve reporting and tracking

it was more of management philosophy change than a technology overhaul that, in parallel to what you are proposing, moved computers at the heart of decision making in police work

that's kind of insane actually

it was still cop grunts that had to fight crime with blood and sweat, and police brass that made decisions

no one, outside of a dystopian robocop fantasy movie, would have suggested that an actual computer make decisions about crime fighting. in fact, you should watch that movie as a good lesson about blindly optimistic technophilia and how simple human corporate greed and shortsightedness makes a mockery of that

i'm sorry but it really is just plain insane that you assert AI should drive the classroom. it might make a good science fiction premise. a miserable, depressing, maddening science fiction premise

write a dystopian fantasy book. don't fuck with kids heads to prove something to yourself that you need to learn the hard way, not them. please

Comment: Re:ADA? (Score 2) 186

by Em Adespoton (#49622859) Attached to: Is It Worth Learning a Little-Known Programming Language?

I think ADA is finally on its way out. COBOL and Fortran will still be around for years though. and anyone who knows their way around MATLAB will also be in high demand for years to come. Pick any language on which deployed hardware depends, and you've got a language that will need people who understand it for years to come.

I once new someone who helped a Telecom deploy their COBOL stack -- she was pulled out of retirement some 20 years later to help them migrate it to a more modern platform, as she was the only person from the team left alive who actually understood how it all worked.

Comment: Re:Educational software (Score 1) 184

no AI can ever do a better job than a competent teacher. the problem you describe is not some amazing new problem no one ever dealt with before, you only reveal the novelty the idea is to just you. all AI will do is hamstring a teacher's effectiveness by proscribing "solutions" according to an algorithm which cannot possibly see the status quo better than a moderately involved human being. as well as saddling the classroom with unnecessary intrusive and burdensome measurements to justify the inaccurate AI's solution

your words speak of blind technophilia

technology has the power to solve many problems in this world. but other types of problems are still beyond, and maybe forever beyond technology. i am not a luddite, i work in technology. the problem is not fear of technology here, the problem is this quasireligious overly evangelical faith that technology can solve all things, even things it obviously cannot

i think technology has wonderful promise in hobby learning and catch up. but no AI and no delivery method will ever do better than an involved human being, a competent teacher, in a classroom. at best technology is supplementary, probationary tool, with an involved teacher proscribing when and where it is used

education is not a factory floor, and never will be, and trying to force it into that mold will just turn students off and they will hate learning. they will learn how to manipulate the algorithm and make a mockery of the AI solution you think is superior, wrongly

Comment: Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: (Score 1) 184

OVERALL Prosperity Index: Besides scores for their economies and entrepreneurship opportunities, countries are rated on factors pertaining to social capital, effective governance, human rights and liberties, health, and security. The U.S. ranks 10th, behind the Scandinavian countries, Austalia/NZ, and Canada.

ECONOMY: Rates countries across 17 factors including gross domestic savings, unemployment, inlfation, non-performing loans, and respondents satisfaction with standard of living and employment opporunities. The U.S. ranks 18th.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP Opportunities: Rates countries across 14 factors including business startup costs, R&D expenditure, and respondents perception that "Working Hard Gets You Ahead". The U.S. ranks 5th, behind Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and the U.K.

of note, the *perception* the usa is the country where you can work hard and get ahead is higher than the *reality*. we can and should close that gap by opposing the rent-seeking corporations and plutocrats that are destroying this country. we need to save this country from their corrupt predations. back to how it used to be

end the legalized corruption that makes the corporations and plutocrats buy our congresscritters and use them to write rent seeking laws that siphon off a couple extra billion for no extra effort, while shafting everyone else. somehow they believe this is better for their bottom line than a growing and healthy middle class that actually buys their fucking products and would make them many many more billions rich than the rent seeking, middle class destroying laws. short sightedly stupid and corrupt

Comment: Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: (Score 1) 184

we are approaching that, we aren't completely there yet. we still have some social mobility, although it is shrinking and we are becoming a classist, stratified society

our social mobility is not as good as nordic countries. every country has corruption but we have far worse, legalized corruption, unlike the nordic countries. actual sane laws can be made against the commingling of money and power, as places like canada and europe show. at least laws against the perverse ways money infects and weakens our government, that the usa tolerates for some unnknown reason. corporations and plutocrats buy our congresscritters and use them to write rent seeking laws that siphon off a couple extra billion for no extra effort, while shafting everyone else. somehow they believe this is better for their bottom line than a growing and healthy middle class that actually buys their fucking products, and would make them many many more billions rich than the rent seeking, middle class destroying laws. short sightedly stupid and corrupt

the idea is stop this madness by outlawing such commingling of money and power (i wish we had a supreme court on the people's side) and reclaim the usa's claim as the country where the poor go to work hard and succeed, and increase our social mobility ranking back to where it used to be

Comment: Re:The bomb (Score 1) 126

by Em Adespoton (#49622237) Attached to: How the NSA Converts Spoken Words Into Searchable Text

I remember when ECHELON was the big 5-eyes project that everyone was up in arms about, and someone circulated a list of key words they were supposedly flagging on, so everyone started using those in phone calls / email / web sites / etc. Eventually we discovered ECHELON wasn't as capable as thought, and was much more focused... until it got replaced by the current system.

Comment: Everyone's a programmer. Even dead people! (Score 1) 339

by fyngyrz (#49622191) Attached to: The Programming Talent Myth

A variation of it is quite prominent on Slashdot, with many users inexplicably believing that programming requires a "special mind", dividing people in to two groups: "can program" and "can never program".

Some of us just have different metrics for drawing a line between "programming" and "stumbling around in a programming language doing dangerous, stupid, and occasionally functional things."

But, hey. If you can set your digital alarm clock, or interact with your microwave in such a way as to involve more than one button push (even if you're going to destroy the comestible), you're a programmer, right?

It's like kids with crayons. They're all artists! Special butterflies! Call the Louvre!

Now get off my nursing home's lawn

Comment: The question ain't "is it on the rise" (Score 1) 186

by Opportunist (#49622159) Attached to: Is It Worth Learning a Little-Known Programming Language?

The question is "is it here to stay".

Take Ruby on Rails. Was the craze not even half a decade ago. Everyone was on Rails. Too bad they led to the chasm and nobody bothered to build a bridge over it.

So learning a language because some startups are crazy about it isn't worth it. But what is? How can you tell whether a language "gets big" or is a tempest in a teapot?

Easy. It ain't the language, it's the people using it. It's the movers and shakers of an industry that decide what will grow and what will perish. If Bruce Schneier started writing his code snippets in Splfurt (I sincerely hope there is no such language, I just made that word up) and if people from Metasploit pick it up and code their stuff in Splfurt, Splfurt is the new big thing in IT security and every framework, scanner, tool and whatnot will have to have Splfurt plugin support and new exploit PoCs will come written in Splfurt.

It's not the language. It's the people using it.

Comment: Come on. What tripe. (Score 3, Interesting) 339

by fyngyrz (#49622119) Attached to: The Programming Talent Myth

From TFS:

If you could measure programming ability somehow, its curve would look like the normal distribution.

Since you can't measure programming ability "somehow" or otherwise, you don't know what the curve would look like. Which reveals the entire set of claims here as utter garbage. If you don't know what the distribution is, you don't know what the distribution is. How difficult is that to understand?

Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.