Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Write to Mozilla CTO Andreas Gal, he's responsi (Score 1) 403

lol, they wrote a wrapped for another companies plugin. That's it. You don't have to use or install the DRM. All they're doing is giving you a "Safer" way to install it. They're taking lemons and making lemonade. This idea that open software shouldn't be open to closed software is misguided and arrogant. The one thing open source needs to avoid is giving corporate management the idea that when they use open source they're going to be somehow pigeon holing themselves. It needs to be REALLY open. Eventually people will come around because choosing open really is the correct decision. Give them an excuse to not use it, like you can't use the software to access a major portion of the content out there, and they really will not chose it.

How long will it take to crack this DRM? 6 months at most. Probably more like 6 days. Why are we pretending like this is even remotely a big deal? It will be abandoned in short order.

Comment Re:big data,,, (Score 4, Insightful) 111

Is there any analysis that shows the rewards of big data are not meeting the risk (ie dismantling the intrinsic built-in trust of a civilised society and the govts we elect to serve us)?

A more cynical person might suggest that dismantling the trust is the reward some people seek. Divide and conquer is an old, venerable tactic used by both current and would-be tyrants everywhere.

And yet strangely, the technique and how to recognize it is not taught as a regular part of every school's history or civics class.

In a less dysfunctional society where at least a few important things are not run by sociopaths, "Divide and Conquer" (perhaps taught by reading some Julius Caesar), "Propaganda Techniques", and "Logical Fallacies" would be mandatory courses for every human being.

Comment Re:Choice (Score 1, Troll) 121

If you don't like shiney, then there's always the console. For everyone else who likes desktops for stuff like videos or web browsing, annoyances like tearing is a distraction, like a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum. Tearing was an issue fixed back in the 90s.

I've used X11 and later Xorg for about the last 15 years. I've never had issues with tearing or any other visual artifacts. Back in the day I certainly had a real good time with modelines (fun!) but I've never had problems with tearing.

Am I the only one who hears complaints like this and scratches his head wondering what the fuss is all about? Lots of these mysterious complaints have never happened to me. I don't believe you are being dishonest, I just would like a more in-depth explanation about what problem you had, what solutions you tried that didn't work, and what you think the working solution would or should be.

Comment Re:Will computers ever be as smart as us? Briefly. (Score 1) 189

Which equates to 71 i7 processors. If you assume that each neuron takes 1000 transistors to simulate (to make the math simpler), and if you take the release price for an i7 as listed on Wikipedia, that totals at $21.3M. Expensive, but not impossible.

There are some rather egregious assumptions to this math. 71 i7 processors would be massively parallel... but the brain is not parallel in the same way. Those neurons are interconnected, most of the many multiples of times, and work together in ways we still do not fully comprehend.

So while 71 i7 processors might emulate the sheer number of neurons, it does not come even close to modeling the same complexity. It might emulate a brain if neurons were simple on/off switches, but they're not. Not even close.

Comment Re:The Science is settled! (Score 1) 330

The author DID deny that the reviewer's comments were valid, and claimed that his paper was rejected because it was "unhelpful" to the cause of AGW. That's what the whole news story was about.

You're trying to tell me things that clearly contradict the printed record.

I would call your comments, in both this thread and the other one in which you have been pestering me, both examples of "denialism". In this case, you clearly denied that the author claimed what he did claim, which was the whole basis of this news story. In the other case, you denied that you linked to a page, and denied that text on that page existed, when it very clearly did exist.

And in BOTH cases, you have been wasting my time.

If you were less polite about it, I would call this deliberate trolling. By now I suspect it anyway politeness or not.


Comment Re:The Science is settled! (Score 1) 330

Nope. It's not there. I suspect if it was you could provide a link. Of course, this is all beside the point that your quote is disproved by the source material.

Yes, it is there, and I got there in exactly the manner I described: clicking "Parent" in this same thread until I got there.

And if you click on the link in that post of yours, which takes you to this page, you will indeed see the words I quoted further up in this thread.

And I repeat: you are grossly wasting my time. I shall not help you find your own goddamned references again.

Comment um (Score 4, Interesting) 192

So... donating to the campaigns of congressmen that'll vote for things you want is now bribery?

Look at their own god damned quoted data:
They donated to 397 members of the house out of 435 members which is 91%

Letter 1 was signed by 4
Letter 2 was signed by 20
Letter 3 was signed by 4
So we have a total of 28 signers.
So just random statistical chance would mean 91% * 28 = 26 of them would have received contributions.
27 received contributions, so the total is only off by 1 member or 3%.
Give me a break. Arstechnica is worse than FoxNews. Why does anyone even read that garbage?

I despise ALL politicians, and I fully support net neutrality, but this "story" is a joke.

Comment Re:I need to know something (Score 1) 131

Simple. There will never be a zombie attack.
On the other hand, being able to train for extreme situations without making the obvious mistake of assigning a real world group as the 'bad guys' because everybody knows zombies don't exist.

If they had used a real world opponent, there would be two problems.
The first, is the diplomatic problems that would arise from them planning conflicts with that group. How do you think China, or The United Kingdom, or any other country would respond to something like that.
Second, there's the whole problem with mindset. You get everybody training to fight someone in the real world, and that's the opponent they think about fighting. If that actually ends up being your real foe, see the first issue, then that's not so bad, but if it ends up being someone else, then you have the problem of people using the wrong strategies since they are mentally locked on the one they trained for. If you always know your opponent is non-existent, and not just a renamed nazi/soviet/scientologists/whatever, then you concentrate more on the fundamentals rather than your training analogs.

It's a good idea to train against a completely fictional opponent that will never be mistaken for anyone in the real world for various reasons. Too bad you don't understand that.

Comment Re:Will computers ever be as smart as us? Briefly. (Score 5, Insightful) 189

OP's entire premise is pretty thin.

Human beings perceive light, for example. (They can also perceive electricity, to a degree, but that is not as relevant to the point.)

But while a human being might perceive that a flashlight at night has shined his/her way, it takes the same amount of time, roughly, a a fiber optic signal from the same distance. So what?

Generally, it is the speed of perceiving and interpreting the signal that takes time, not the speed of its propagation. We communicate at lightspeed, too. Or close to it. Anybody who has had a video chat has done that. Did that make you superintelligent?

We have never built an "AI". And in fact we have NO reason to believe -- no evidence whatsoever -- that its speed of perception and interpretation would be any faster than our own. There is a very good chance that it would be much slower... at least in the beginning.

I would like to remind people that the idea of "intelligent" machines has been around for almost 100 years now. AND we still don't have any solid evidence of being close to achieving such a thing. Sure, computers can do a lot, and what they DO accomplish, they tend to do very fast. But what they accomplish is not "AI". Even Watson is not "intelligence", it is only the illusion of it.

Comment Re:The Science is settled! (Score 1) 330

Do you know how to navigate Slashdot, or not?

Do you know how to view parent? All you have to do is click "Parent" under a comment to go up one level.

If you click "Parent" on my comments in THIS thread (i.e., your exchange with me), you will eventually get to a post you made that contains a link. The only post with a link to which *I* replied.

If you then follow that link, you will find the passage I quoted.

I repeat: you're a fine one to talk about others' qualifications, if you don't even know the contents of the references YOU linked to, or in what context. I am done here. I have better things to do with my time.

Slashdot Top Deals

If I have not seen so far it is because I stood in giant's footsteps.