Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

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).


Comment: Re:Thoughts from a 'four year' libertarian... (Score 2) 2247

by ticklemeozmo (#37776924) Attached to: Ron Paul Suggests Axing 5 U.S. Federal Departments (and Budgets)

We need a Unix-like government: efficient, fast, responsive, cleanly designed, compartmentalized, and well documented. People need to feel like they can participate and have a voice, because when you don't have that people end up rioting in the streets.

It's a good goal, but this is near impossible. There's no way that information can travel from department to department being as well-documented as you want in a efficient, fast and responsive manner. The problem is the PEOPLE. A grade 36 bureaucrat is not going to be efficient, fast and responsive.

Comment: Re:This might be a good thing... maybe (Score 1) 176

by ticklemeozmo (#37078600) Attached to: Motorola To Collect Royalties For Android

I don't yet see Motorola as an evil company.

Is 'erroneous' a vanity name and I'm missing the joke? There is nothing Motorola that says "power to the people." Their tablets are locked down, their phones are ticking time bombs, their cable set-top boxes are crippled; all in the name of "for your protection."

I still have hope you are kidding, and I'm the butt of this joke...

Comment: Re:Ignore the Troll (Score 2, Insightful) 703

by ticklemeozmo (#33468212) Attached to: The Push For Colbert's "Restoring Truthiness" Rally
Really? Count the number of times John Stewart makes direct fun of a Republican, then rewatch an episode and count the number of times he makes fun of a Democrat. Each episode is HEAVILY weighted to make fun of conservatives. (Colbert is a little more middle but still ridicules Republicans more.) Comedy Central is just as left-leaning as CNN and MSNBC.

Comment: Re:Job-seeking tips for computer programmers (Score 1) 349

by ticklemeozmo (#32771166) Attached to: In UK, Computer Science Graduates the Least Employable

But computer science graduates don't go into IT. Thats a blue collar profession now. Installing windows and reloading printers.

As an employer, this is all too true. If you have mediocre skills, you get nothing. The commodity "institutes" churn out unemployable garbage, and the entitled college graduates throw around terms like "ERD" but have no actual skill and balk at Help Desk offers because they think it's beneath them.

Comment: Re:Well? (Score 1) 981

by ticklemeozmo (#32734740) Attached to: The Tuesday Birthday Problem

You're absolutely correct IF you assume that the man is just describing one of his children. That is the logical interpretation of the problem. However, if someone went out and specifically selected a family with at least one boy...

I hate to be a smart ass on this one... but the question was posed by a man who was just describing (at least) one of his children.

Comment: Re:Well? (Score 4, Informative) 981

by ticklemeozmo (#32728888) Attached to: The Tuesday Birthday Problem
This is a gambler's fallacy problem. The more tangents you throw at it, the closer you get to .5 (50%), while never reaching it. This is the limit, why? Because there's only two potential outcomes for the other child: boy or girl.

What you (or the website you copied and pasted the ratio from) fail to take into account (and why it's a Gambler's fallacy problem) is that when involving chance, anything that happened in the past is completely irrelevant to future probables. I could roll a die 99 times, and get 6, the probability of getting 100 6's when I've already got 99 6's is still 1 out of 6, not 6^100.

The reason the chi square doesn't come into play here is because it doesn't MATTER the order. Has she said "What is the probability my SECOND-BORN was a boy?" it would be perfectly logical to write the square because the boy who was born on Tuesday could be either the first born or the second born, she never stipulated.

We can say that the boy, who was born on a tuesday, was also a Gemini. Does this change the ratio? No, the probability of having two boys is still 50-50%, because the unknown only has two possible outcomes: boy or girl.

Comment: Pissed about this! (Score 2, Insightful) 539

by ticklemeozmo (#31922044) Attached to: Photos of Chinese Sweatshop Used By Microsoft
I'm mostly pissed that the guy making the mice is getting paid $0.52/hr but I have to pay $16 plus shipping to get one?!! I'm OUTRAGED! I don't think this would be such a big deal if the greedy corporations actually passed down some of the savings to us.

Yes, because of the pesky labor unions in the US, I can see a mouse needing to cost $16 if made here because some high-school dropout is entitled and thinks he should get $25/hr for putting self-adhesive feet on mice. But if you saving money on labor, how about the customer saves money too?

Comment: Re:What is "more random"? (Score 2, Interesting) 395

by ticklemeozmo (#31234538) Attached to: New Method for Random Number Generation Developed

What exactly does "more random" mean in the summary? I think something is either random or it isn't. Perhaps this claim should just make us "more skeptical".

Nothing can be ever be considered random. If it is, it's just in a state of "we just don't have a means of measuring it's next value."

You can call me guessing a "number between 1 and 10" random, but that's just because you don't know my method of choosing. If you did, it wouldn't be random at all. If you knew the order of the deck of cards, and precisely each transition of the shuffle, then the next card could easily be predicted. Since you don't have that power, it's considered "random".

Same thing with network traffic, moving the mouse or memory contents; if you had a way to quickly and accurately measure all the inputs and knew it's method of generation, you could very easily guess the outputs. In all these cases, "random" only means "you cannot guess the outcome with any statistical significance."

Byte your tongue.