Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Uhm (Score 1) 55

Do I understand this right that they want brute-force encryption? If so, somebody really should explain complexity analysis to them. These algorithms have been chosen in such a way that brute forcing is computationally hard.

How exactly... we don't know. Maybe someone has an RSA-cracking supercomputer up their sleeve they're keeping secret. Maybe someone's particularly good with a soldering iron and can read off keys from extracted flash memory chips.

If any member state has that capability, there is no way in hell they'll share it. That is of utmost importance to national security and is most likely top secret. That's not stuff you share, ever.

If the second part is the solution against encryption, I'm sorry, we have bigger problems. As a matter of fact, if they think that is the solution they really don't understand the problem.

"We don't know, but we should share". It's grasping at straws, really

Comment At least 10% workforce reduction for one finance c (Score 4, Interesting) 163

I used to work for a major regional finance company in their IT department, after almost three years there I finally made it down to one of the processing floors. What a disaster, something like 200 people on this floor, all overweight "lifers" with at least 18" deep of nick-knacks on their desk, they did... something? One lady I helped, every 10th check did not have the company logo on it. Her job was to print checks for brokers. Somehow the 20 programmers up on the IT floor hadn't gotten around to automating her job yet. The other 199 people on this floor had similarly mind-numbing jobs that were likely 2-10 lines of scripting away from being automated away. I suspect as these people get hit by busses and/or die of clogged arteries, their jobs will be automated. But 200 jobs is roughly 10% of that company, an entire floor of a skyscraper, poof, gone. They'll likely be out-competed by a much smaller company that can do the same services for a quarter of the cost and 6x the uptime before the last of those lifers retires.

Comment Re:Terrible samples but overall plausible (Score 1) 228

I don't disagree, but the "study" was that high IQ people are more at risk for mental illness, not that it was a defined cause-effect.

Obviously the psychology associated with this is complex, and yes, there have been many extremely intelligent people with a belief in God, individual spiritual/metaphysical beliefs or philosophical understandings that provide a less cynical, positive psychological bias.

I was mostly elucidating the mechanism where I thought intelligence could become a barrier to belief systems prone to producing positive or hopeful outlooks which contribute to coping mechanisms that resist depression.

Comment Re:Terrible samples but overall plausible (Score 2) 228

Actually, the PowerBall is capable of having no winners, which is how the jackpot gets up into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Yes, *somebody* will win the lottery but mathematically speaking the odds against winning are so mathematically large the most realistic prediction is that you can't win the lottery.

Comment Gotta be water, not air (Score 3, Interesting) 75

Essentially, an enormous, empty, upside-down âoebucketâ is placed on the seafloor, and air is sucked out of the bucket, which forces the bucket downward, further into the seafloor sediment.

If there's a lot of air in that bucket, you're going to have a hard time getting it to the bottom. I'd guess they actually just open the suction hole and let the air flow out and fill it with water as they're lowering it, then once it's on the bottom they suck water out. The flow of water over the bottom edge seems like it would loosen the sand and make it easier for the bucket to sink, at the same time that the water pressure on top of the bucket (due to the pressure differential from the suction) would force it downward.

Comment Terrible samples but overall plausible (Score 5, Interesting) 228

The sample populations here are terrible, but I can accept the overall proposition as plausible.

My theory would mostly center around the idea that higher intelligence is associated with a diminished ability to accept falsifiable or non-provable platitudes, optimism and superstitious thinking. This leads to a deficit of coping mechanisms for the difficulties of every day life and hardships, resulting increased stress, pessimism and negative thoughts and ideation. You might even oversimplify it as a lack of hope in some ways.

Less intelligent people may find superstitions (including but not just religious belief) easier to accept, especially if provided by authority figures. They're more likely to believe in optimistic future outcomes, including improbable ones, not out of gullibility but because they lack the understanding of why they are unlikely -- it's a "I can win the lottery" mindset. This provides a wealth of coping mechanisms for dealing with ordinary setbacks and problems, reducing stress and anxiety. Jesus won't _really_ set you free, but if you're dumb enough to believe it, he will actually set you free.

All this being said, it's probably just as easy to believe that people with an interest in joining an exclusive high IQ group are also people with a low sense of self esteem who are prone to depression. Belonging to a group that's not only exclusive but also exclusively for high intelligence people provides them with a sense of validation and superiority, but for many it's not enough and they wind up depressed and anxious anyway.

But I guess all of it could be true to some extent.

Comment Re:It Makes Perfect Sense (Score 1) 95

your ideology supports as being the highest moral standard

Why are you claiming I hold that bizarre belief?

FWIW, to the degree I'm interested in environmentalism, it's merely to keep it relatively nice for people to live in. I couldn't care less about cockroaches, except to the degree that they contribute to my quality of life, and I don't really think that they do. I do kind of like having other plants and animals around; many are useful, many are interesting, some are just plain cute. But that's really neither here nor there, because my comment had nothing to do with environmentalism. I was just correcting your misunderstandings of evolutionary theory.

Do you think that anyone who cares about the correct understanding of evolutionary theory must be a "humans are awful" environmentalist? If so, you should examine your own assumptions.

Thanks, but I will stick to my twisted reasoning.

That was bad phrasing on my part. "Twisted" has negative connotations that I didn't mean to imply. What I meant to say was that you were reasoning evolutionary outcomes that couldn't possibly have been related to the supposedly-evolutionary pressures that you were citing. Perhaps "confused thinking" would be more on target.

Comment Slashdot AI commentary summary... (Score 5, Insightful) 128

I've decided that this accomplishment -- a dizzying milestone in artificial intelligence that not long ago was though impossible or at least decades away -- is actually meaningless and doesn't prove anything and they should clearly have been working on some other problem. I have no idea how their system works, but I'm confident that their approach is just "brute force" (or something, I clearly have no idea what even that means) and won't generalize to any "real" problem solving (with my definition of "real problem" subject to change without notice).

I will only admit that any progress has been made towards artificial intelligence when computers perform exactly equivalent to humans in all tasks with no human intervention. I mean, I won't really, because I have weird quasi-spiritual hangups about believing computers can be intelligent, but that's where I'm putting the goal posts for now. Digital computers can't think, but I can because reasons. Free will or quantum mechanics or something else that I haven't thought about at all, probably.

Also, cotton gins and blacksmiths, therefore computers will never take our jobs. Amen.

Comment Re:This is what the patent trenches look like (Score 1) 90

That's no different from before, except the badges and the cop cars. For members of the tribe it's still easier to get chummy with the tribe leaders than with the local state bigwigs or the DC scum. Not that I'm saying it's a good situation, just that while different it isn't necessarily worse for the tribespeople.

The problem is, though, it's like assuming someone is Italian they can get chummy with the mafia. When the tribal leadership is corrupt, they're a closed circle and being the same ethnic group doesn't get you anywhere. In fact, you're probably still better off as white because people might ask questions about what's going on if a white guy gets hassled on the reservation.

But if an Indian gets hassled? They've got nowhere to turn, except maybe by massively exposing themselves filing some kind of complaint with the FBI (which DOES have authority on reservations as a Federal law enforcement body). Now you're a snitch, a race traitor and the white man's lackey, and most likely living in an isolated place with nowhere to go.

Either tribal sovereignty needs be turned into the equivalent of state level sovereignty or it needs to be scrapped.

Comment Re:No such problem (Score 1) 337

First of all, most respectable websites will never do anything like that.

Define "respectable websites" using a definition that isn't circular. There literally is not a single website associated with a respectable organization, outside of maybe Google, I've used that hasn't, at some time, implemented at least one, and often ALL, of the following (not simultaneously, thank god.)

1. Pop-ups
2. Javascript DOM modals
3. Javascript DOM modals that appear when you scroll the page
4. Flash Ads
5. Autoplaying video
6. Autoplaying video that moves on the screen when you try to scroll past it and cannot be paused

With the exception of 1 and 4, ALL of these are actually becoming MORE popular. They are all inherently user hostile, and users complain about them to no effect.

And you're telling me they won't do Bitcoin mining? Pull the other one.

Slashdot Top Deals

The number of computer scientists in a room is inversely proportional to the number of bugs in their code.