Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers (Score 1) 225

So yes, my ultimate gripe is with the carriers and the OEMs because they are the most direct villains, but Android's openness was the weak gate in Google's paradise that let them in.

Wrong. You are actually complaining about the carriers being left OUT or the carriers opted OUT - the carriers that you want. You don't realize, but the problem is NOT that they were let IN.

If Google had been less open, and say they would have left out the micro-SD card slot as they usually do. Customers wanting those slots would not have bought Google phones. So carriers wanting those customers would not have sold Google phones. Which could have been carriers that you want just as now the carriers you want don't sell Nexus devices.

Openness is still an enabler - not an impediment.

Comment Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers (Score 1) 225

No it doesn't make sense. If you want closed Google experience - you already have Nexus devices. Motorola devices are plain-old-Google too nowadays. Don't install the dialler replacements, messaging replacements, launcher replacements and you are good.

Does the existence of Samsung devices, with altered Google experience, which you don't have to buy - affect your enjoyment of the pure Google experience in Nexus / Motorola devices? No if you are sane.

But the open-ness has enabled other people, who do not want a pure Google experience, to also enjoy almost-Android. Which increases application sales. Which improves experience on pure Google devices ecosystem as well. For example I want micro-SD card support which Google refuses to provide so I shop elsewhere. Every person has different needs - openness provides for all to be happy.

Your wanting one thing doesn't make other people wanting other things any less important.

Comment Re:As someone who's drinking it right now... (Score 1) 543

Hi, thanks for your post.

I don't see the sources of some nutrients the Soylent guy, with capital S, uses. I understand when he explains why he hasn't given the source for elemental / ionic nutrients, he could have provided the source for protein at least? Some (other) people have said his diet is vegan, but need to know what protein he is using. Are you vegetarian / vegan / otherwise restricted in your diet?

Do you feel your jaws get enough exercise? Never tried such liquid diets myself, but I am immensely interested in what people feel about their jaws after a long period of liquid diets. Even if weekends are exceptions.

About fibre - there are completely different functions of soluble and insoluble fibre. Soylent guy doesn't make it clear which kind he uses. What do you think about this? Depending on other ingredients of your food, maybe soluble fibre is less important for you and you do with only insoluble?

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 351

Stupid. Since many people who don't have symptoms are infectious, you can never "protect" others from the virus. In general, an easily transmitted virus cannot be avoided. You fight it, and most of your acquaintances need to too.

And guess what - fighting it makes you better at fighting another slightly different one, another day. So people out with flu are doing others a favour. Really.

It is people who are low at fighting ability who should stay at home. E.g. very young children, very old people, people with AIDS or heavy flu symptoms , people on extreme crash diets. This is economically less harmful because most such people are less productive economically anyway, and if they are productive, they need to exercise caution so that they remain productive.

Your solution needs altruism which is a rare commodity, and yet is worse than my solution which keeps incentives scenario manageable and yet is more effective by making healthy people more capable of fighting diseases than ever before.

Comment Re:Ignorant to their own research (Score 1) 444

Yes, but in their own way, they are making good quality drives more popular. This by your logic, which is sound, lowers their future prices.

They are also making bad quality drives less popular, increasing the chances of retailers / distributors or even Seagate itself making a distress sale. Who better than large buyers to make a distress sale to?

Yes, "their own way" is small. But it is better than nothing, for a low cost to do and report the study.

Comment Re:Ignorant to their own research (Score 1) 444

Depending on infrastructure, the hard drives being 4 TB (instead of less) also lowers costs. E.g. if they are short of SATA ports, 4TB can work without a costly upgrade to more SATA ports. Or if their logic to split data across drives is more efficient with larger individual drives.

Seagate 4 TB drives are widely available but WD ones aren't, yet.

Comment Re:Isn't this the ultimate goal? (Score 1) 732

You cannot bluff your way out of this blunder. In this post, I clearly mentioned the definitions I am using. In this reply you have given factually incorrect statements in the light of definitions I had declared.

You could have disagreed with the definitions, you could have proposed different definitions, you could have explicitly mentioned you don't want to define things concretely. But no. You made unambiguously incorrect statements. You can't change your definitions NOW with retrospective effect.

Comment Re:Isn't this the ultimate goal? (Score 1) 732

No, I explicitly said that I am considering the dominant definitions of "free market" and "communism" BECAUSE you do not define it yourself. You are of course free to use your own definitions, but you will be understood only if you either use dominant definitions or define the non-standard terms of discourse BEFORE the discourse.

A free market is a market (regardless how Adam Smith defines it) ...

One of the most idiotic things I have heard in 2014. Good bye until you learn why. Above paragraph is recommended reading in the process.

Comment Re:Isn't this the ultimate goal? (Score 1) 732

No this is an extremely ignorant and simplistic view of both free markets and communism. "Means of production" as defined by commonly accepted communistic theories, under commonly accepted free market theories, must be privately owned under commonly accepted free market theories. Buying/selling of "means of production" as a whole and shares into them is a major vehicle of economic activity as defined by Smith himself and his "free market" followers.

Free market's Smith warned seriously about business influencing government, and the need to keep them distant. Communist thinkers have, on the other hand, argued about them being the same. Collusion that Smith warned multiple times against, cannot be prevented unless business is privately owned.

For a person making fun of American ignorance of communism, you seem to take pride in your ignorance and have none the less strong opinion for it. You could pass for an American in this department any day of the year.

Comment Re:So you want to retire a statistical term... (Score 1) 312

I don't think physics has any headstart. Economics is at least as old as the time when our ancestors started living in groups / tribes. Physics is no older. If economics is the less "science" for it, it is fully deserved.

Yes, old people not progressing is a problem but it is in physics too. If economists have it in a greater degree, economics is the less "science" for it and quite deservedly.

Yes, testing hypothesis in macro - economics is somewhat like the problem astro-physics has. Only passive observation is feasible, not active experimentation. Actually economists have convinced governments to alter serious macro-economic policies, astro physicists have been able to do far far less active experimentation. My impression of lack of consensus in economists is that it is greater than that in astro-physicists. I could be wrong, though.

Comment Re:Isn't this the ultimate goal? (Score 1) 732

While I agree Americans have a skewed perception of communism - in not only what they know but hugely in what they feel about it.

But since you don't define communism yourself, publicly agreed upon definitions drawing from works of Marx, Lenin, possibly Mao will need to be taken as working definition. They completely don't go with free market, as defined by, say works of Adam Smith.

Democracy (in fact any *cracy) doesn't practically go with free market because the subject of the *cracy is the master, and can (and mostly will) force the markets to be non-free.

Comment Re:Isn't this the ultimate goal? (Score 1) 732

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Then your quotation has nothing to do with the topic that was being discussed. Question was
What can humans do that robots can't?

To which you answered Feel a sense of accomplishment, followed by what now proves to be an irrelevant quote.

You are mistakenly believing that YOUR , or Banks' sense of what is "impressive" has anything to do with whether the "doer" itself feels a sense of accomplishment. That is false from your own reasoning outlined in this post of yours - that one has to believe one's own task "difficult" to get this sense of accomplishment. In believing one's own task difficult, humans are influenced by the thinking of their fellow humans - but that is far from a universal trait in humans themselves, to say nothing about non-human doers.

By this line of logic, what you are considering impossible for a robot is - to make YOU feel the robot's task was "impressive". I agree a robot might never be able to do that, but feeling a sense of accomplishment itself, by any reasonable definition, doesn't seem impossible at all.

c) an accomplishment is defined by the obstacles you overcome to achieve it, so it does not need to be special. You, as a human, faced the challenge with more obstacles than a purpose-built machine.

I don't agree with this line of argument. The perception of challenge is self-perceived. Program the robot to "deem" its own task "difficult", whatever it means. And then program it to "feel" a sense of accomplishment. You could define "difficult" again in the subjective way you define "feel a sense of accomplishment" but such a definition is useless as a functional definition for this discussion for the same reason I outlined in my last post.

There are two problems with your last paragraph:

I see them as proof you got the point rather than "problem". The "problem" is what I was trying to say.

a) How do you, personally, know that everyone around you isn't lying to your face about what they believe? Claiming AI would be non-genuine because you can't "detect" anything more is no different. There would be debugging procedures both equivalent to, and much more powerful than, the fMRI we currently use to detect (what we think are) genuine emotions in humans.

Exactly what I am saying. So your definition of "feel a sense of accomplishment" is useless, especially but not solely because it is in a context of non-humans as well as humans.

You also mistakenly believe there is any such thing as "genuine emotions" when talking together about human and non-human subjects.

b) It would be impossible to build an AI that behaved fully human without either copying a human template or understanding how it worked.

Correct, but it is necessary to to build robots like that only to prove people like you wrong - who feel robots cannot "feel a sense of accomplishment" - by either showing the definition of "feel a sense of accomplishment" useless or actually feeling it by your definition.

If the human template is copied, then the new model has no appreciable difference; if the AI built from scratch, we'd know for certain how experiences would affect its decision-making.

Well, "behave" fully human in this case is satisfied by being more than a human too. So it can still have appreciable "difference", the difference being of being "super-set". If the set of functions of the robot includes feeling a sense of accomplishment, your statement is proven false.

Slashdot Top Deals