Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:core point (Score 1) 178

It's also easy to posit generation ships.

But that is the whole point of my post. For life one level up, where humans (or whatever we turn into) are merely the equivalent of cells, a trip of a few hundred years would not be a generation. It would be the equivalent of the week- and month-long sea journeys our ancestors took.

Comment Re: Simple (Score 1) 146

Because the emergency dialler requirement is not intended solely for the person who owns the phone. It's expected that any telephone that you pick up (land line or mobile) will work for emergency calls. This is also why landlines can still make emergency calls even if they are nominally disconnected by the phone company.

Comment Re:And this is what that means: (Score 2) 267

First, correct.

Second, bullshit.

Third, true. But until the fucking politicians wake up and declare this thing illegal and throw the fuckers in jail, that's all we can do. I'm still a big fan of that idea to turn off any and all spam filters for one week and show normal people what e-mail would be like if we didn't work so hard to make it halfway acceptable. After that week, either we can shut down all the SMTP servers because nobody is using e-mail anymore, or something would finally be done on the legal side of the problem.
(and to those who say it won't work: Fuck off, retard. We throw murderes and thieves in jail as well, and while the crime rates are not zero, they are a far cry from the ratio of spam, so apparently it does work if you snap out of your binary thinking.)

So if you want a content limited, pay-walled, countermeasure-riddled web -- just stick with that childish attitude. But if you want a sustainable, awesome web ecosystem -- then start proposing acceptable limitations that nurture the publishers we all love.

Biggest bullshit of them all.

How about we throw away advertisement as a model simply because nobody likes it, you know, like fascism and sacrificing babies to the gods - yes for a while we thought there's no alternative, but then we kind of realised that we were just being stupid.

Let's just throw it away, and I can guarantee you that we will come up with better answers.

Comment Re:Don't RTFA (Score 1) 267

This is the most brilliant reply to the whole thing and deserves to be modded +10.

You spotted the fast one they are trying to pull. You are right, "content blocking" is a newspeak word. We are not talking about content, we are talking about the non-content bullshit that is getting in the way of the real content.

Good catch.

With that in mind, these "rules" are even more evil than I found them on first reading. In fact, they are a good sign that someone at Mozilla has his head on backwards, and I should really check out other browsers again. This is pure evil.

Comment Re:Consumers reject advertising (Score 2) 267

advertising are starting to see what customers really think: they don't like advertising

And that is putting it very friendly.

Yes, nobody except the advertisement industry likes advertisement. Consumers don't want to see them, and most companies see them as expensive bullshit they only do because they don't know how else to survive against their competitors, who do.

The main problem with advertising is that it is given to us when we're not looking to buy (or rent) something. If I'm watching Star Wars then I really don't want to hear about your latest car. If I'm reading slashdot, I don't want to see an ad for your latest cloud offering.


I have a concept floating around in my head to fix this, to replace unwanted advertisement with wanted product information, but as I'm busy with one hundred other projects, I don't see an opportunity to make it happen.

But I strongly believe in some years we will look back at that time and go "what the fuck were we thinking?".

I strongly believe advertisement as we know it will go the way of the Dodo bird, or of horse carriages and sail boats - maybe we will keep a little in museums.

Comment fucking idiots (Score 3, Insightful) 267

Content Neutrality: Content blocking software should focus on addressing potential user needs (such as on performance, security, and privacy) instead of blocking specific types of content (such as advertising).


Have you been on the Internet lately, like in the last five years? Have you been outside lately? Have you watched TV in the last 10 years?

Advertisement is not neutral content, so it doesn't deserve content neutrality. Advertisement is the heroin of communication. It is intentionally designed to attract, bind and consume as much of your attention as possible, and attention is a limited resource. Both in time and in total your attention is limited. If it is tied up by roadside advertisement, you cannot focus on driving as well. If it is busy processing the ad messages on the train, you cannot focus on the conversation with your lover as good. If by repetition it has entered your long-term memory, it impacts you whenever it is triggered, not just when it is present itself.
And we all know that if you have to focus for a long time, you feel exhausted. That is your mental battery running low.

This shit does not come for free. Advertisement, by its very nature, burns user resources and violates user needs. Anyone who doesn't understand that has no place writing rules about content blocking. Go back and take at least the 101 class before you write a textbook on the subject matter.

Submission + - Ask Slashdot: Knowledge Management Systems

Tom writes: Is there an enterprise level equivalent of Semantic MediaWiki, a Knowledge Management System that can store meaningful facts and allows queries on it? I'm involved in a pretty large IT project and would like to have the documentation in something better than Word. In a structured format that can be queried, without knowing all the questions that will be asked in the future. I looked extensively, and while there are some graphing or network layout tools that understand predicates, they don't come with a query language. SMW has both semantic links and queries, but as a wiki is very free-form and it's not exactly an Enterprise product (I don't see many chances to convince a government to use it). Is there such a thing?

Comment Re:core point (Score 2) 178

Once one has transmitted the means to convey information and technology, plans can be transmitted (ala Contact, but with technology for biological creation, not communication). One could send to another world every last step needed to create and nurture a human being in-situ,

You are assuming that life as we know it is meaningful to advanced species, and I challenge that assumption.

Life on earth made a leap forward when cells began working together and specializing. The same process is already going on in human societies - many of us are so specialised that we would have a hard time surviving outside the city and the logistics systems that provide us with water, food, electricity (for heat) and build our houses and roads. Imagine this goes on for another thousand years, with humans becoming the equivalent of cells. Highly specialised, completely linked into a larger system that becomes the new entity.

Life of such scale does not have restrictions that we have, the same way we are not impacted by the death of some individual cells in our body. Such a lifeform could easily engage in interstellar travel, even with the hundreds and thousands of years it takes. Its individual "cells" would die and reproduce, but it as a whole would continue.

You can even see nation states or cultures as a primitive version of such life. An identity above and beyond the individual. A frightening prospect for us westerners, who live in a culture that celebrates individualism. For asians, such ideas are much less frightening.

Comment Re:core point (Score 1) 178

We then need to create a signal that is clearly different than that which is produced by natural processes lacking intelligence.

This will give you attention, but not communication.

Transporting meaning, i.e. signal, is more than just making sure you get noticed. How to encode meaning is largely arbitrary and requires a common understanding between sender and receipient. See to the early days of the Cyc project for enlightenment on just how many assumptions are in even the most simple of our communications.

The problem is not generating a signal. Any infant can do that pretty much from the moment it's born. The problem is being understood, and that takes years, even if you are completely embedded in the structure that creates language.

Comment Re:Nope. Doesn't work like that. (Score 1) 358

Do you REALLY see many people like that around you? Cause those are only about 2% of population.

As are the 160 IQ people.

Those people can't be all below average. There are simply too many of them for that. And the curve is broken.

It's not a perfect curve, that's for sure. But the point is not about numbers and math. The point is what you said here:

Your view is distorted by the fact that you are probably standing a bit low (indicating higher IQ) on the right side of the curve, looking up-curve at all those people below you and going "OMG! There are SO MANY of them."
So you don't see that in actuality, most of those people are actually on your side of the curve. Closer to you, than to those below IQ 85.

Most of us here are on the above-average side, as a self-selected group of people interested in stuff that's not very simple. So from our perspective, things that seem incomprehensible stupid would seem less so from the average persons POV.

I personally can't wrap my head around the concept of religion at all and while I can write an article about the psychological needs and cultural circumstances that contribute to the formation of religious ideas, I cannot personally "feel" how it is to be religious. And I can feel myself into many other things.

But from statistics I see, being religious is still pretty much normal.

So in short: Never make a conclusion about what's normal from your own personal experience.

"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"