Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:My 1985 UG thesis on evolutionary psychology (Score 1) 121

I presented an analogical story about why simpler thinking could be better for survival because it allowed faster reaction times. ... Like everything, intelligence can have diminishing returns depending on the level and the context -- although it might also have threshold where exceeding some level may change the nature of the survival game entirely too.

You would be interested in a fiction book called Blindsight, by Peter Watts. Check it out!

Comment Re:Just kick him out. (Score 1) 338

In general, if you give a homeless guy $10, he'll spend it immediately. If you give a homeless guy $100, he'll call his friends and spend it immediately.

There's good reason for both these behaviors.

For the first, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. You've heard of that experiment with kids and delayed gratification? The ones who don't force themselves to wait for the extra cookie are the ones who got burned in the past. They, and the homeless, know the score. When you can't count on promised payment, you stop taking chances like that.

For the second, of course he's going to spend the money with his friends. His friends were there for him; they helped him in the past. He's got to repay that generosity, otherwise he won't have friends next time trouble comes.

Comment Re:The third option (Score 1) 536

Lisp and Dylan use something called conditions. The signal() function (equiv. to throw) calls condition handlers; the stack is not unwound. You get a perfectly understandable stack trace that looks like normal function calls.

Even better, the code can retry operations, since the stack is not unwound so the context is preserved.

Here is a brief overview: http://opendylan.org/documentation/intro-dylan/conditions.html

Comment Re:behavior, like constantly checking your phone? (Score 1) 163

The listener doesn't really need to look the speaker in the face from the listener's perspective. The listener knows he's listening. This is something the listener has to do for the benefit of the speaker.

The speaker doesn't have the inner perspective of the listener. He doesn't know if the listener is paying attention. The speaker needs the listener to respond or at least make eye contact so he'll know if he needs to repeat something or continue speaking at all.

If you, as a listener, care about what the speaker is saying, then you ought to be giving him that feedback. If you don't care, then acting uninterested is the accurate way to go, but don't be surprised if it pisses someone off.

Comment Re:Oh no, someone is using the scientific method (Score 1) 245

O brave new world, that has such people in it

See, here's the thing. Brave New World is mostly a dystopian book, but that society had several good ideas among the dross. One of them was that people should be allowed to do the work that they like to do.

In the book, what people liked to do was programmed into them from birth, but that isn't the case with these surveys. So, seems fine to me.

Comment Re:"He said, she said"? (Score 1) 308

This includes the requirement of providing a consumer choice mechanism, which has been implemented for the industry at www.aboutads.info.

I looked at those links, and there's nothing about a requirement to provide and implement that mechanism. They use phrases like "participating companies" and "best practices and guidelines," and so far, the only thing they "promote the use of" is an icon linking to data-collection policies.

Maybe they'll toughen up later — they have text saying as much — but not yet.

Slashdot Top Deals

CChheecckk yyoouurr dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh..

Working...