Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Hey guys, seriously. (Score 1) 286

Okay. Let's examine a person who obsessively builds wealth by providing value and expecting compensation. Isn't that just ransoming your own ability? You're essentially saying "I could do all of these wonderful things for everyone, but I won't, because I believe I need recognition for my actions in the form of these many little rectangles of paper that I may or may not someday use to reward someone else for the same thing."

On its own, this is the fast road to total economic deflation; people stop exchanging goods and services because they lose the ability to, necessitating inventions like bracketed income tax and programmed inflation simply to keep the system stable. The economy may not even be growing if the products are perishables like food, and yet the scales continually tip themselves towards exhaustion. (The sole exception is when a company's employees are its entire and only customer base and the money just circulates back and forth, never growing or shrinking due to interaction with the outside world.)

I would still say that a university overcharging in its food facilities (which they inevitably seem to do) qualifies as immoderate, since the whole campaign amounts to a significant profit; it's merely distributed, as with most sophisticated forms of money-extraction, e.g. high-frequency trading.

Comment Re:Google, really? (Score 2) 274

If you remember the blatant IBM marketing material that was interspersed with the Jeopardy episodes, they had planned from the start for Watson to be scalable (one of the first applications was medical literature search)—and if you remember the episodes themselves, you'd realise that it's a tad silly to suggest it couldn't handle cases with zero or multiple answers, since it performs Bayesian reasoning on a huge pool of possible hits and simply announced the best one.

But Watson isn't, wasn't, and would never make sense as a simple search engine like Google; it's more like Ask Jeeves in its intended use; the internet is its source text. And do keep in mind that TFS even suggests performing a Google-style search as a fallback mode. (You did actually read something about this before posting, right?)

Comment Re:Political timeline (Score 1) 1144

So... blame it on Bush, again? What relevance does that have? Even if he personally tanked the economy, is this to be an excuse for the entire failure of the various Congresses and the President over the last 5 years?

There was no surplus. The social security contributions were counted in the general fund, which is either correct (which means the "trust fund" is a lie) or incorrect (which means we did not have a surplus and Clinton lied... again).

Comment Re:Liberal strategy (Score 0) 1144

Don't let the fact that everything you just said is a lie stop you from posting more rants in the future.

The GOP is willing to pass a budget immediately as long as Obama waives the individual mandate-- just like he waived the mandate for employers-- for 2014. It's come to that, but the Fascists in the Senate do not wish to compromise and have said so.

It's time people like you let go of your cognitive dissonance and help us solve our problems.

Comment Re:How I see it... (Score 1) 1144

I sympathize with your situation, but you must be aware that the House passed at least three different bills that would fund the ENTIRE government except Obamacare. They're even willing to fund it if Obama would sign a waiver of the individual mandate for just one year. That means Obamacare, in all its hideousness, would still go into effect for 2015. But Harry Reid, Obama, and their lackeys refuse to compromise, after years of criticizing their opponents for not compromising enough with their demands on other issues.

So I ask you: who are the real villains? And a second question: where are you getting your news? Because you are clearly not well informed.

Comment Re:Police and Judges. (Score 5, Insightful) 871

I'm appalled that someone would write such a lengthy article about rights without cracking a history book to find out where the 5th amendment came from. In common law, confessions via torture were admissible. Even when torture was outlawed, it continued to be done in secret as defendants could still be compelled to testify against themselves. The only way to rectify this to a great degree is to give the defendant the option of remaining silent. This way, if he is coerced and thus blabs to avoid torture, it will raise questions. The small potential benefit to the prosecution is not worth the high risk of being caught torturing people.

Comment Re:Is the end nigh again? (Score 4, Insightful) 130

we do need a baseline measurement.

Certainly. Then, and only then, will measurement of volume and rate acquire meaning. In the interim, statements like:

Even if it isn't a new development,


could be destabilising parts of the Antarctic ice shelf immediately around them and speeding up melting

...are no more than alarmist bullshit.

Now, next year (and years), when they measure those streams, if the aggregate volume is up, I'll nod in agreement when someone says "this could be a result of warming." Even more meaningful, if the trend continues upwards, we have an actual indicator. But right now we have the equivalent of "hey, here's a traffic signal" with absolutely no indication of if it's red, green, or broken.

Comment Re:Liberal strategy (Score 5, Insightful) 1144

> Both, equally.

Exactly ... well, perhaps not exactly equally, but that's part of the problem. People think that because their particular politicritters are fractionally better on some things, that makes the other party a true Crowd of Hoodlums.

Both parties may have different policies and beliefs and different strategies for firing up their base(s) and winning elections, but anyone who thinks that either party is for the "common guy," they are delusional. Simply delusional.

The attempt by both parties to blame this current shutdown on the other would be funny if it wasn't so sad.


Taking Back Control of Your Data, With Fine Grained, Explicit Permissions 55

BrokenHalo writes with a story at New Scientist outlining one approach to reclaiming your online privacy: a software gatekeeper (described in detail in a paper from last year) from two MIT developers. "Developers Sandy Pentland and Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye claim OpenPDS (PDF) disrupts what NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden called the 'architecture of oppression,' by letting users see and control any third-party requests for their information – whether that's from the NSA or Google. Among other things, the Personal Data Store includes a mechanism for fine-grained management of permissions for sharing of data. Personally, I'm not convinced that what the NSA demands outright to be shared is as relevant as what they surreptitiously take without asking."

Slashdot Top Deals

"The voters have spoken, the bastards..." -- unknown