Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The unmarried speak... (Score 1) 397

You aren't married are you? Anyone who is married is laughing at your naivety right now. (Including me)

Watch it with your generalisations there mate - they don't apply to all couples. I've been married multiple times (married right now, as it happens), and my view is always "It's my car, if you don't like it then go get your own."

Funnily enough, most women I've been with would rather take your shitty stuff for free than have to buy their own. It's only a problem if you decide that her feedback about your property is important yo you.

Comment Great (Score 4, Interesting) 36

Gigabit LTE means that you'll be able to use up your entire high speed data quota in less than a minute, unless the carriers finally update their data pricing models.

How is it that we've ended up with $10 for 10Gb or less of data now for about ten years? In the meantime, we've gone from inefficient EDGE to unbelievably efficient LTE, with HSPA+ available now for, what, the last five years on most GSM family networks?

Yet the data prices haven't budged. The carriers have more bandwidth than ever, more efficient ways of using it than ever, but they still think they're running ancient EDGE or cdma2000 networks.

On a positive note, this is more bandwidth than most people's cable modems. I wonder if the cable industry will catch up.

Comment Re:Solution? (Score 3, Interesting) 121

Cultural and social cues too. British people, for example, frequently accuse people from a certain large Northern European country of having no sense of humor. Why? Well, because when they/we (I'm an ex-Brit) make sarcastic comments in front of them, said Northern Europeans take it seriously.

Now I have to assume sarcasm is fairly universal. I'd be surprised if aliens from the Planet Thargh IV are not familiar with the basic concept of "saying the opposite of what you mean because it's absurd, and finding humor in its absurdity". So the chances of said country not actually actually being familiar with the concept is pretty unbelievable.

More likely is that the transmission - the social cues, the way English speaking people exaggerate the first few words of a sarcastic sentence ("Oh a sarcasm detected. Well that's a useful invention!") to indicate that we're being sarcastic and not serious - is different.

There's another location where sarcasm just never seems to work (and, alas, I'm dumb enough not to realize it half the time): The Internet. Or rather, written text, where sarcasm is interpreted as stupidity more often than not. We've even developed cues to try to ensure it's not misinterpretted, from "/s" to fake HTML tags. Again, this suggests everything is about the cues.

Computers probably can detect sarcasm if taught the cues. It ought to be easy: look for cues, determine meaning of sentence, if cues present and interpretation in local context is absurd, call laugh().

Or raiseEyebrow(). Whatever seems appropriate for the lowest form of wit...

Comment Re:So What (Score 1) 84

I've always used a serif font for reading, san serif, even Helvetica, just isn't the greatest for large amounts of text except in cases - and recentish Kindles aren't one of them - where the resolution is so attrocious that seriffed fonts just aren't practical.

I'm kinda surprised it was as big a deal as it was, I'd have thought most people weren't using Helvetica.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 535

You think a libertarian could vote for a man who, as a state prosecutor, went before the state supreme court to fight to keep a man whose innocence had been indisputably proven from being released from prison ?!??!?!

A man who seriously tried to argue that a prison sentence given in an unjust trial to an innocent man, should not be overturned when the proof of his innocence emerges !
You want an agent of the state being COMPLETELY totalitarian - the candidate in the polls who has actually ACTED like a totalitarian dictator during his career is the far right's darling. Ted Cruz.

That guy is everything libertarians ARE and NONE of what they SAY they are, so they probably shouldn't vote for him.

Comment Re: Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 535

I don't think you know anything at all about Sander's economic policy.

Unless you think Denmark is a totalitarian state that has made money illegal - just like Canada and Sweden and Norway and EVERY OTHER MAJOR COUNTRY ON EARTH.

Comment Re: Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 0) 535

>The best thing about Sanders's economic policy is that it's utterly fantastic, impossible thinking, entirely ungrounded in reality.

Reality, apparently, is a place where Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Canada, New Zeeland and a few dozen other countries simply don't exist.

After all - if as another poster declared, socialist economic views can ONLY lead to totalitarianism then those countries basically eradicating all poverty with "socialist" policies like strong labour unions, free education, high minimum wage, strong regulations, free healthcare and great social safety netts are all totalitarian now - some of the most free and happy societies on earth CANNOT have resulted from that.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 535

Actually - Euro-style social democracy is significantly closer to classical libertarianism than American capitalist Libertarianism.

The original libertarian philosophy states that the excercise of power over another brutalizes both the wielder and the victim and that economic power is even more damaging than political power.

They have a point to. In the end your boss can generally inflict far more damaging results on you for saying unpopular things than your government can. The government may imprison you - but you'll have a roof over your head and food in your belly, your boss can take THOSE away. Even in those places where the government will kill you for saying something unpopular, the methods of execution are still generally far less painful, slow and horrifying than starving to death.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 0) 535

>. I happen to think fiscal conservatism is at the moment more important than social liberalism,

There is not now, nor has there in all of human history *ever* been such a moment and it's logically impossible for it to ever happen since your next statement is the exact opposite of the truth.

>because the fastest, most effective way to take away people's choices is to take away their fiscal discretion

False - and any truth it actually had would actually be an argument FOR socialism - since if this is true - then having money more evenly distributed would make all of society more free. If money is a requirement for liberty then it's logically impossible to support anything but egalitarianism and still say you support liberty.

No, you can always use your free speech to campaign for lower taxes, but if you argue for using the money from lower taxes to *buy* the right to campaign - you just created a complete oligarchy. And that's exactly why sane people aren't libertarians. Those who can follow a train of thought past the first station can see that logically, it must lead to complete plutocracy, which in turn MUST lead to complete economic collapse, the rule of authoritarian warlords and a population resorting to piracy and robbery in order to survive. True libertarian states can only end up like that, because fundamental to libertarianism is removing absolutely every defense society has ever invented to prevent that from happening.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.