Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What is this story doing on Slashdot? (Score 2) 185

Lets hide facts, then the Alt-Right (or whatever) won't be able to use them.

THEN, when some Alt-right guy finds the actual facts, and builds a racist case based on the "system hiding facts" as "proof" of some conspiracy (which is in fact a true conspiracy) he can use all of those actual facts that you wanted to hide as evidence of racial superiority, and recruitment goes through the roof as real facts aren't countered by alternative reasons because they are politically incorrect facts that were hidden.

OR, you know, admit the facts, when they are bad for your cause, because hiding the truth never works out as intended.

Comment Re:Hard to believe (Score 0) 64

When a government can give you anything you want, it can take everything you have.

The bigger the government, the more it assumes power unto itself. And the more power it assumes, the less power the governed actually have. And Obama was one of the worst in history, but since he was well loved by the world elites, and the politically correct crowd, they didn't care about surveiling his own citizens. (yes, GWB was bad, patriot act bad)

Comment Esperanto... no (Score 1) 225

Tell you what... I might look into Esperanto when I get finished learning (Mandarin) Chinese. Because Mandarin is much, much more important in general as in there are large numbers of people who speak it, even here in the USA, and Chinese food is mostly awesome and it helps when ordering to be able to speak the language (and Esperanto lacks food traditions entirely, so phbbbt.)

Don't even get me started on Cantonese. Or other variants. Ouch.

The catch is... near as I can tell, I'll never finish learning Mandarin. Somewhere there must have been an emperor who ensured that Mandarin was going to be the hardest language to learn ever.

Turns out I have no plans to learn Klingon, either. Not until there are real aliens speaking would I be interested in such a thing. At which point, I would consider it my #1 priority, though. Because, you know, aliens!

Comment Re:You could have AM radio. (Score 0) 215

Me thinks you severely underestimate the size of the required antennas.

No. I just understand that local AM radio is practical with a short wire like an earbud connection. It won't act like any kind of a DX machine, certainly, but you'll hear locals. I can pick up our local (10 KW) AM station very well by sticking a screwdriver into the PL-259 on my SDR. There are several ways to push a short wire into low frequency resonance, and not all of them require a large actual inductance. Gyrators, for instance are practical at AM BCB frequencies; I've done quite a bit of experimenting with them. The ability to have an ultra high-impedance load that still is quiet and provides significant gain allows antenna impedances that are not typically low to still perform well enough for many use cases. Doesn't hurt to have sensitivities down into fractions of a microvolt, either - you don't need a lot of signal, particularly at AM BCB.

Comment Re:Cigar? (Score 1) 215

The author of the link knows a fair bit about radio, including cellphone radios, being also the author of non-trivial SDR software and a long-term RF engineer.

The author of the linked article, OTOH, knew, and reported, that the device in question made available three bands that the radio in the cellphone is (a) not designed to operate on and (b) not permitted to operate upon.

In light of those facts, you might want to temper your remarks. Or not. Free-ish country and all that.

Comment You could have AM radio. (Score 4, Informative) 215

My Galaxy S7's FM radio has worked with NextRadio (FM broadcast band) for quite some time now. AM is possible, if they are so inclined to make that happen. Because...

Also interesting is that for an FM radio to be practical, you need an antenna, and so far, that's been the wire to the earbuds / headphones, which is decently longish. So very likely implicit in this "there will be FM radio" lies an "there will be an audio jack", and also, "if we want AM radio, we can do it." Ever since low power software defined radio has been possible, this stuff can be done. Particularly in a high-power availability device like a cellphone. It can be done the old way, too, but not nearly as well.

I suspect the whole "there will be FM" thing is known somewhat gleefully in the hallowed corporate halls at Samsung as "taking advantage of Apple's... courage."

Comment Can't see it (Score 1) 1009

And if there are 7 billion starving people outside the gates of their automated defenses? They will run out of ammunition eventually.

Impossible scenario. First you'd have a pile of dead too high to get over, then you'd have disease, and all of this assuming you could get 7 billion people to surround a compound, which is absurd. Further, the number of poor who would be willing to walk into heavy arms is not going to be large. There's little point trying to get food and shelter by killing yourself. You can say that some will defend the interests of others, and no doubt they would, but also this would be a very small number.

Then there's the "ammunition" thing. Bullets? Really? Will it be a question of bullets? Will a laser run out of photons? How about a tailored disease vector for which the rich have the countermeasure, and the poor don't? Area denial weapons? Chemical weapons? How about armored robots which can simply tear anyone in-the-zone limb from limb?

If the poor become a serious threat (by which I mean, violent), you simply can't argue that they can create and maintain a serious, widespread threat. The first time they go after the unarmed rich, that'll be the end of the unarmed rich, right there. You will almost instantly have armed rich, and now the context is completely different.

See, it's all very well to talk as if the poor were capable of exerting continuous unified force against modern arms, but the idea is utter nonsense: it doesn't stand up under even mild scrutiny.

The only solution to this that has any chance of working is social; government force, used top down, to disenfranchise the rich, and distribute the wealth much more generally than it is now. That's probably what will actually happen, too. If not, it's going to be a hell of a mess, and the poor will almost certainly lose in the process.

Comment Not necessarily (Score 1) 1009

Until something happens where they need tradesman to survive because you know rich people don't really have a shit ton of skills. In the end, they still need the plebes to raise the crops, feed/slaughter the animals and maintain the infrastructure.

What part of "the rich will be the first to be able to afford and emplace comprehensive automation" did you fail to understand before you wrote that?

What they will need - and what they will have - is automation that can both do the jobs at hand, and produce more automation, and repair the automation in place.

The only relevant observation here is that the poor don't really need the rich; the rich, however, will have automated defenses, and so what the poor need or don't need may not be particularly on point.

Comment Automation may be the wedge (Score 1) 1009

The only difference is how society's production is apportioned to everyone.

Where "everyone" really means a little for most, and a lot for the rich.

This is why incomes at the lower tiers are barely subsistence level (and if you consider medical care and decent shelter as included in the definition of subsistence level, then it isn't even that.)

The imbalance is striking, but continuous social engineering has brought the masses around to the mindset that this is generally an okay state of affairs. To change it will require some other major social change as a catalyst.

Pervasive automation might serve, as it is very likely to rather suddenly alter the prospects of a very large number of people in a very short span of time. Getting them to accept that alteration may not be easy, or even possible.

Comment Re:Thanks Europe! (Score 5, Insightful) 293

It isn't even a real problem.

analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher

The thing about a real market economy, is that if you could end up paying women whatever % less than men, you'd hire more women, everything else being equal.

The problem is, not everything else is equal. Women will forgo wage increases to stay closer to home, with the kids, during the 18 years or so it takes to raise them to adulthood. That has profound long term effects on wages. BTW, Stay at home dads suffer just as much, but get no sympathy from the Feminists.

This isn't about equality, this is about "feelings" about equality. After all, if you're against "wage fairness" you're obviously a misogynist" who hates women. Facts don't matter.

Slashdot Top Deals

Just go with the flow control, roll with the crunches, and, when you get a prompt, type like hell.