Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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).

×

+ - Hoax-detecting software spots fake papers->

Submitted by sciencehabit
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "In 2005, three computer science Ph.D. students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology created a program to generate nonsensical computer science research papers. The goal was “to expose the lack of peer review at low-quality conferences that essentially scam researchers with publication and conference fees.” The program—dubbed SCIgen—soon found users across the globe, and before long its automatically generated creations were being accepted by scientific conferences and published in purportedly peer-reviewed journals. But SCIgen may have finally met its match. Academic publisher Springer this week is releasing SciDetect, an open-source program to automatically detect automatically generated papers. SCIgen uses a “context-free grammar” to create word salad that looks like reasonable text from a distance but is easily spotted as nonsense by a human reader"
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 2) 365

by thedonger (#49355757) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

The difference between "depressed narcissistic arsehole" and "perfectly normal narcissistic arsehole" isn't as far as you'd think.

I think if one is a depressed anything at all they should not be allowed to control the fate of hundreds of people. If a doctor finds any hint of depression then the airline and maybe FAA should be notified. Fuck doctor patient confidentiality when peoples' lives are directly at stake.

Comment: Re:is this good? (Score 1) 159

by thedonger (#49348799) Attached to: Many Password Strength Meters Are Downright Weak, Researchers Say

I think the greatest threat is not that passwords are too simple, but passwords are re-used.

Yes, that is a huge issue, led to, in part, by complex rules.

I once queried one of my client's security tables to find the instances where multiple users had the same password (stored as a hash). Even though I expected some repetition, I was shocked at how many people had the same passwords.

And one more gripe: When I am limited to between 8 and 12 characters. WTF!? My passwords are dead easy to remember, but impossible to guess. And over 12 characters. Needless to say, I never remember that 8-12 char password.

Comment: Re:New boss - same as the old boss (Score 2) 79

by thedonger (#49347097) Attached to: NY Times: "All the News That Mark Zuckerberg Sees Fit To Print"?

It was dead either way. Either ISPs were going to go all cowboy or the gov was. I would rather have the gov do it after seeing how long and hard the ISPs fucked us. At least the you can get the gov to tie its own hands once in a while.

On the other hand, when the government goes "all coqboy" they can literally tie our hands as they wield the full weight of the law.

Comment: Re:is this good? (Score 2) 159

by thedonger (#49346937) Attached to: Many Password Strength Meters Are Downright Weak, Researchers Say

Companies and online entities need to learn that when you force people to use a capital letter, a number, and a symbol, that most likely the first letter will be the capital letter, the number will be 1, and the symbol will be !. Or maybe @. If they foist a wacky password or require one based on complex rules, it will either be written down, or be the most simple implementation of the rules.

Enforce minimum length. Allow spaces. Make a comparatively small alphabet have sufficient entropy to withstand brute force.

Comment: Re:Given that humans still struggle... (Score 1) 129

by thedonger (#49337613) Attached to: Do Robots Need Behavioral 'Laws' For Interacting With Other Robots?

We consider ourselves very "fuzzy" computers, but ultimately we make a decision (or decide not to make one, which is the same to the person getting hit by the trolley). Programming "fat" or "very fat," similarly, could be "looks like this picture of Honey Boo Boo's mom." But even that fuzzy logic, at some point, is a pre-programmed threshold that leads to a binary decision.

Comment: Re:Tickets Are All About Revenue (Score 1) 760

We could set up speed cameras to ticket everyone who's speeding. We don't. We could just mandate in-car GPS tracking and not even allow speeding in the first place.

We could also sell the Constitution to Kimberly-Clarke Corporation and have it turned into toilet paper. On second thought, I'd rather we defer your Orwellian Nightmare until Google self-driving cars have replaced personal autos.

Comment: Re:Sounds Horrible (Score 1) 760

I don't want a fucking idiot driving down my street too fast whether he has no money or is a millionaire. And I certainly don't want millionaires DELIBERATELY breaking the law because the consequences are so fucking pathetic to them that it will never matter.

I have known people who lost their license for repeated offenses, in one case permanently (is a specific state, as this is not a federal matter). The ability to pay a fine doesn't mean they can go on in perpetuity offending.

Comment: Re:Eqaul Protection (Score 1) 760

So what about a fine that devastates a poor person while at the same time being not a measurable punishment to a rich person makes it truly equal under the law? If a fine applied the same level of hardship to both rich and poor, that tells me it's treating all people equally.

No one is compelled to speed, and the fines aren't shrouded in mystery if one takes the time to find out what they are (other than the obvious way: getting pulled over).

"One Architecture, One OS" also translates as "One Egg, One Basket".

Working...