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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:already exceeding expectations (Score 1) 969

Explain to me again why this is more reassuring than someone who is an old hand at foreign policy and a known commodity?

Because while he is thin-skinned, he doesn't have Hillary Clinton's decades of history of corruptly exploiting public office to enrich her and her family while baldly lying to your face about it. She's made herself rich - not by building hotels or other constructive things, but by selling political access to people like overseas dictators who don't mind things like throwing gay guys off of rooftops to please Allah.

So we don't like his manners, but we do like her serial lying, corruption, and incompetence ... because she's been doing it for a long time and we're used to it? No thanks.

Comment Re:Retracting the Truth (Score 1) 61

If WhatsApp want to sniff your messages, they can. They update the app to just not encrypt.

If government forces them to do that, they can.

In and of itself, that's an entirely different threat model.

What this says is not "WhatsApp is 100% secure to use" (because security experts are not stupid enough to ever say that).

They are saying "This compromise that you claim lets anyone open your encrypted messages? Yeah, it's rubbish unless you literally take over WhatsApp servers."

There is no service in the world that cannot be subject to government interference, and no software in the world that cannot be subject to the software authors themselves putting in a backdoor.

At best, you can try and shut down if you're asked to do so, and hope that trusted companies are covering your back.

Comment Re:Trying to run before you can walk (Score 2) 157

What you're proposing is basically a GA: Genetic algorithm.

Even when you give a system a biological analogy as its base, the results are unpredictable, un-interpretable, and don't confirm to any logical architecture.

There is a famous example of a chip designed to detect two different fixed frequencies of an input signal, and output which is active (if any). Designing the chip by hand results in a working, logical model of a certain size.

If you allow GA to run random "evolution" over the circuit contents, punishing it when it gets it wrong, and breeding from it when it gets it right, you end up with a circuit that appears to do the job.

Ironically, it even does it inside a smaller space than the human would have designed it. However, trying to interpret HOW it does that job is almost impossible and certainly not worth the effort. But the problem is, if you want to USE that chip, you have to do that effort. One day, there might be a corner case where it doesn't operate as you believe it might, and you won't know until you hit it.

At least with a logic circuit you can understand, you can in theory mathematically prove what it will do quite easily. With one that has multiple feedback loops and randomly-built interactions between parts, analysing it isn't worth the money you'd spend doing so, especially as it's quite likely that even after millions of generations of training, it could still contain quite prevalant bugs (i.e. when exposed to a real-world frequency close to the target ones that fluctuates differently to how whatever training inputs were used).

And GA's have proven themselves not quite as useful as we first hoping. Millions of generations later, you can still fall flat on your face and there's no real way to steer things differently without doing it all over again, and no reliable way to understand or adjust the output in even the smallest way.

Whenever you see that an AI has been "trained", you should be suspicious. It's like saying a dog has been trained. It's still an unpredictable, ever-changing, free-thinking animal that we don't understand but which usually gives us the output we want (sit, stay, heel). There's no telling, though, when it might decide to turn around and bite you, because it's range of inputs is not the only factor in how it makes a decision.

And that's a model of a system that, generally, abides by rules, accepts training, etc. and operates in certain logical ways to ensure survival after millions of generations of evolution. Anything we fabricate has even less guarantees.

Comment Re:Since they determined autopilot wasn't to blame (Score 1) 174

Surely, then, the autopilot did nothing anyway.

Whatever Tesla might claim, autopilot is a dumb idea.

In this instance, it literally did NOTHING to prevent a collision that should have been obvious to a driver for over 7 seconds.

Sure, it's the driver's fault for relying on it, same as if you drive "relying" on your ABS to operate instead of leaving a sensible distance.

But surely it just proves that autopilot is a load of shit and this just says that you can't even blame the manufacturer if it does nothing whatsoever.

It's like someone selling you a laptop that, if the keyboard doesn't work, aw, sorry, that's your own fault for not checking it works all the time you use it.

Comment Re:conventional television networks go bye bye (Score 1) 145

I couldn't even watch at set time when I DIDN'T have a DVR. I recorded on my VCR like crazy in the 90s when I was too busy to watch many evenings.

It is good to have a bunch of shows on Netflix right now during the winter break when regular TV is even crappier than usual.

Comment Re:I remember back in the 90's (Score 1) 145

Then i noticed how they were cutting whole scenes out of some of my favorite shows so they could show more ads. I dont know what happened after that because i canceled service & havent looked back since.

Don't get me started! When I discovered METV, I thought it was great that I could watch some of the old shows from my youth. It didn't take long to find that large chunks of those shows were missing because of ads.

Comment Assange. (Score 2) 540

So not only do you expect prisoner exchanges (when the US hasn't even asked for you) on your terms, despite being a criminal in the UK for skipping bail, but when the part you demand happens (whether related or not, I'm guessing not to be honest) within a few days despite the intense complications of such an action, it has to have been immediate for you to keep your promises?

He's an attention-seeking prat, and always will be.

Ecuador - kick him the hell out of the door already.

Comment Re:Only a fraction of US munitions... (Score 1) 199

We bomb brown people because we can get away with it. That's more opportunist than racist, but it's still racist.

As soon as "white" people start doing the same crap, it happens to them too. I'm guessing you're wishing away that pesky little Balkan conflict a few years back, where we bombed white people for, among other things, slaughtering olive people.

Pretending that it's skin color that makes ISIS a fair target for air strikes is the worst sort of craven intellectual laziness.

Comment Re:Price has other factors (Score 1) 91

Being outraged by imaginary problems and not bothering to confirm anything before seems to be the new norm. You'll fit right in.

No, the problem was the summary: "The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, competing services, and a lack of software and security updates"

Parallel construction grammar fail. That should have read, "The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, no competing services, and won't lack software and security updates." The summary meant to negate all three parts.

Or they could have said "a lack of software, and security updates". For want of a comma, the meaning was lost.

Comment The real problem (Score 1) 304

I'd mostly stopped buying DVDs before Netflix. For me the real culprit was too many alternatives. I'd watch PrimeTime TV, I'd watch recorded shows, primetime or otherwise, on my DVR, I'd watch YouTube, I'd not watch anything because I was futzing around online. By the time I got around to the DVD I'd bought, it was practically rotting with age.

Slashdot Top Deals

In a five year period we can get one superb programming language. Only we can't control when the five year period will begin.