Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: People are on but not on. (Score 4, Interesting) 394

by v(*_*)vvvv (#49393571) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Living Without Social Media In 2015?
The youth are not embracing facebook. Facebook is a brand, and it is hated by too many taste makers. Facebook doesn't taste good. Any employer that likes facebook is already behind the curve, pun intended.

Most people on facebook are not on facebook. They have inactive profiles. They may check to peep those who are active, but beyond that, there is very little utility or upside to those who quit caring. And this is always a simple function of time; everyone quits caring eventually. Facebook will continue to insist these peepers are "active" but no, this bluff was tried by Google+ and it won't fool anyone. Those looking for a job might clean up their profile just in case, but this doesn't mean they're on or using facebook.

Facebook will become the next myspace. That's why Facebook, being run by people who know this well, is buying what could be to facebook what facebook was to myspace. That's why Instagram and WhatsApp needed to be purchased.

Facebook is moving beyond a platform. Social media to them is now about real estate. You can move off from facebook to instragram like one would from Santa Monica to Venice. But your landlord is still facebook.

Here is one concrete example of why Instagram is amazing and Facebook sucks. When a brand posts something on Instagram, there is no "promoting" their post, there is no "mining impressions", and there is no "paying for likes". There is no machine learning optimized feed. Instagram pushes a photo to everyone instantly, and the response is also unencumbered and immediate. And it has no ads. Unlike facebook, Instagram does not stand in between you and your followers. All their efforts into the quality of what facebook should be doing on facebook, yet the answer was to not be there at all. The presence of the "host" is not welcome in any social setting, not online or offline. We don't need the waiter or waitress to feed us at the restaurant while reading ads. That's facebook.

Seriously, facebook sucks. It's future is dead. Even just for the reason that my mom has twice as many friends than I do and all her peers love it. She just turned 70.

Comment: Not a choice (Score 3, Interesting) 397

by v(*_*)vvvv (#49379679) Attached to: Why America's Obsession With STEM Education Is Dangerous
If we're choosing, we're already losing sight of what it truly means to be intelligent, capable, and human.

Art is expression, science is technology, and philosophy is intuition. The tools of an artist are made with technology. A scientists imagination is powered by expression. And without art or science, what would a philosopher spend their days thinking about?

These divides are mostly for the convenience of being able to hire a specialist and for splitting students into classrooms. At the end of the day, there are no downsides in being proficient in all three.

Here's one way to look at it. Hypothetically, given three candidates, if you need a philosopher, pick whoever scores highest in philosophy. But given all scores are equal, whoever has the highest combined score will be the better philosopher or scientist or artist. None of these takes away from any other, and more often than not, it's where they overlap that is the most interesting, relevant, and progressive.

Expression, technology, and intuition can be applied to anything, not just to one anther. Take an iPhone. It's built with technology, it's a piece of art, and it was made with a philosophy. Take Barack Obama. He is a master at expressing himself, his political decisions are guided by his intuitions, and technology was key in winning his elections. Take Michael Jordan. His style was all his own, he had awesome sneakers, and his intuitions helped him win his championships -- from when to shoot, when to pass, when to quit, and when to come back.

If you look at anyone who got far in life, it rarely matters where they start, but by the time they get anywhere, you'll see traces of all three.

Comment: Dumb first. (Score 1) 294

by v(*_*)vvvv (#49328881) Attached to: Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk
When Elon says that the risk of 'something seriously dangerous happening' as a result of machines with artificial intelligence, he is not referring to sentience. He is referring to dumb AIs not working as intended. Maybe an auto-piloted car running over a baby or an AI trading program accidentally crashing the market... One of which already happened.

And even with regards to the singularity or whatever, we know the thing is going to be dumb first. We were all dumb. Kids are cruel and irrational and love to play. If AI were anything like us, it'll be childish first before it surpasses its parents. No one seems to go there.

But the real threat is us wishing for daemons, not by accident, but on purpose. The open letter warns 'our AI systems must do what we want them to do.' As long as there are military interests, AI will be made into weapons first. Enlightened robotic butlers aren't going to kill us. Robotic soldiers will do it better, and do it first, and they will be obeying our orders.

Comment: don't censor. mock. (Score 3, Interesting) 216

by v(*_*)vvvv (#49286349) Attached to: France Will Block Web Sites That Promote Terrorism
The Japanese twitter meme contest was a far better counter attack than or censorship or war.

Terror is a feeling and humor is the antidote. Just as the Scary Movie franchise ruined classic horror, once it's mocked and funny, those giggling are no longer scared. They are empowered and immune to that pattern of fear. The Daily Show is also founded on this, as is/was Charlie Hebdo. France agrees with Charlie, but still fails to understand the guiding principles.


Comment: The Old Apple (Score 3, Interesting) 86

by v(*_*)vvvv (#49279547) Attached to: Nintendo Finally Working On Games for Smartphones
Then Nintendo had a lot in common with Now Apple. Games were simple enough that indie developers could make hit titles that Nintendo would then publish and distribute as cartridges, which is basically what the App eco system is, minus the hardware. But Nintendo was Apple, not an App developer... and to stoop to that level is seppuku harakiri suicide.

What if Nintendo made an official NES emulator app and publish every NES game ever made... add a gamepad accessory built to legacy standards, and the NES graveyard just became a NES-fan's utopia. Do this for the SNES, Gameboy, N64... whatever an iPhone can handle. Keywords: Every game ever, identical, fingertips. This wouldn't be just another App or just another game. It would be Nintendo via my phone! Can't wait!

Comment: Re:There might not be Proper English (Score 1) 667

by v(*_*)vvvv (#49269415) Attached to: Why There Is No Such Thing as 'Proper English'
Exactly this. Proper is in the context, and there is proper English for every occasion.

Kids using broken grammar and butchered words is proper for their audience. But when they need to speak to impress their teachers, their parents, their employers, their investors, their readers, their students... they will speak proper English.

The issue is whether one can communicate their philosophy, their science, their intentions at the highest level. This is the skill that is lacking in public education in China and Japan and even in the US at lower levels. Learning how to express sophisticated thoughts proficiently requires a higher education even for native speakers, and the Ivy league schools does set the international standard for proper, intellectual, universal English.

Comment: We're getting better, not worse. (Score 1) 320

It takes a better scientist to correct a scientist. For all these mistakes to come to light is a sign that we are getting smarter, that research is becoming more open, and that science is accelerating. A lot of it is thanks to the internet and the speed at which information can travel. Catching our mistakes is progress. Any scientist knows this.

> that puts the very basis of our reliance on scientific research results at risk

Utter nonsense. Science is about applying our findings and building new technology. Results that cannot be reproduces are completely useless. The faster we weed them out the better.

Our reliance on scientific research is permanent. Our reliance on useless research is what needs to go.

Comment: Not if we hate it. (Score 1) 209

The prediction here is made by extending the present, but the future is never that predictable. Look at snapchat and google allowing deletion of entries. The demand for ephemeral data is growing, and this directly contradicts the premises. What this doesn't take into account is the people NOT wanting this who will invent ways to serve those who don't want it either... and when that market surpasses the Timeline reseller market, this prophecy will not be fulfilled.

Timeline is a technology that is already here and it already has a market. In the future, we will be able to own our timeline, and we would not want others to own our timeline. The government will try, but we will fight them, like always. And once there are better alternatives, we will get off facebook and google and all the timeline reselling monopolies....

Timelines aren't just for people though... Phones, toasters, forks... anything could have a timeline, and this is where non-right-violating timeline technology has a huge upside. But I'd be wary of any company banking on the timelines of people, especially those that disregard basic user rights and user voices, such as facebook and google.

Comment: What would inspire. (Score 0) 194

by v(*_*)vvvv (#49107209) Attached to: The Imitation Game Fails Test of Inspiring the Next Turings
The movie was great, but it was a romantic drama, if anything. Well made, but touche.

A more inspiring movie would have been one that would delve into universal computers and the underlying "code" that appears to dictate the real "computational" nature of the universe itself. All modern computers are Turing machines. But without the fundamental capacity of computation embedded within nature itself, computers would no be. Alan Turing didn't just crack the code of Enigma. He cracked the universe first. The machine he created tapped into the computational universe, just as those who split atoms tapped into the atomic universe.

Comment: Exits don't cure anything. (Score 1) 188

by v(*_*)vvvv (#49098317) Attached to: Why Sony Should Ditch Everything But the PlayStation
Sony just sucks right now. No matter what it does, it's failing. And when they fail, companies like to glorify their exits as some forward thinking strategic move, but it's all just spin. If they didn't suck, they'd be doing it. Sony already "exited" their Vaio business, and they also "exited" my neighborhood mall by closing the Sony store... When Sony was awesome, it "entered" the TV market, the computer market, the game console market... This is all just signs that the company sucks, and a company that can't stop bleeding money is forced to take it up a notch. It has to start cutting of its limbs.

IBM is a good US example. They spun off their hard drive business, their computer business... they had a bunch of commercials about what I could hardly tell, and now they are firing a bunch of people, whilst denying it of course, saying they're just "moving people around while dropping a few". But whatever. Companies that are successful hardly ever fire. Toyota keeps hiring. Google keeps hiring. All these stories written for shareholders are moot.

Comment: Secure communication is always available. (Score 1) 110

by v(*_*)vvvv (#48835701) Attached to: To Avoid Detection, Terrorists Made Messages Seem Like Spam
There are infinite ways of encoding communication or circumventing contaminated channels. So trying to regulate communication or spying on data pipes is absolutely pointless. The NSA is only good for catching idiots and careless mistakes, and is at serious risk of being manipulated by those who can fabricate evidence. That's a low bar considering their cost and their cost on human rights.

Comment: Re:Scientists are the minority (Score 1) 786

by v(*_*)vvvv (#48788669) Attached to: Michael Mann: Swiftboating Comes To Science

Exactly. This is the conversation that is relevant. Scientists repeating their finding like a broken record only reinforces the notion that what they say has little effect. Anyone even talking about the science at this point is offtopic.

The issue here is the science of money and of politics, and the true scientists of these fields wear suits and work as executives, as lobbyists, and as congressmen. And they're rich because they know what they're doing. Al Gore was our greatest weapon, but even with an Oscar winning documentary and all that exposure, he didn't do enough in Washington. He couldn't. He showed that Washington cannot be educating. It can only be bought.

Comment: Re:Scientists are the minority (Score 2) 786

by v(*_*)vvvv (#48788529) Attached to: Michael Mann: Swiftboating Comes To Science

By saying the models are out of range, you have already admitted the models are correct, just out of range.

Scientists have no incentive to be wrong or inaccurate, and given evidence, they will incorporate it into whatever it is they are working on. If you're holding on to evidence no one has, please share it. If you're repeating what you read somewhere, well, then we've all heard it before.

> Try arguing about evidence rather than your feelings.

Nothing I said was emotional, but if it moved you, then maybe your exposed buttons got pressed.

Tell me, are you a scientist?

The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was.