Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Good luck (Score 3, Insightful) 111

I guess they'll just do deep packet inspection on all traffic to discover that it is uhm, encrypted.

Next step is to further de-prioritize encrypted traffic so to "discourage" this behaviour. Or just make it easy to read transmission content.

This is useful because it will encourage us to encrypt all our traffic. Then there will be little alternative but to give a fair share of bandwidth.

Thank you Cisco and good luck.

Comment Re:Resonating with Americans (Score 1) 177

Firstly, I don't put much stock in EQ, or AI as a valid way to measure EQ, or reports from hired companies using AI to assess EQ, as meaningful. As opposed to, for instance, peer-reviewed research.

That being said, it's no secret that Clinton is mostly "we're doing great" and Trump is "we need to change". That's the takeway from this report.

Now let's ask the American people: which sentiment resonates with you? Are you feeling mostly good about your situation, the economy, your job prospects, our internal security, our external policies?

Regardless of all the crap that's going on this election, that's the fundamental difference between the candidates. Clinton is saying "we're doing great", her public speeches say exactly that ("America is already great!"). Trump is saying that we have a host of problems, and we should fix them ("Make America great again!").

This is the intellectual discussion we should be having in this election - not locker room talk or rape allegations or anything less than the overall picture.

Take a moment and ask yourself, how do you *feel* about your situation in America right now, and whether the US government is benefitting you or not.

If you like your situation, vote for Clinton.

If you want change, vote for Trump.

Actually it's more complicated than that. You present a "breakdown" to a binary choice. "we're doing great" and "we need to change".

If you paid any attention BOTH candidates are proposing changes. They simply differ in what should change in how.

If you vote for trump you have no idea what's coming. He's been contradictory and vague on some details. At the same time he has been unrealistic about some changes.

Who you agree with is none of my concern. I suggest you look at the proposes changes the candidates are making and their plan on how those will materialise.

I can promise you the moon on a stick but what is my capability to execute? -you know things like, will it pass a public vote, will it gain bi-lateral support, can it be legally enforced or implemented, will it cause mass riots...those sort of things.

To me the choice is clear.

Comment This takes me back (Score 1) 108 the film Chronicles of Riddick when the ship's computer says "Angle of approach, good." a couple of times and then says "Angle of approach, not good."

I wonder if next time will include some probes before the lander. A two-part vehicle. One that keeps orbit and another that goes to the surface with the added twist of a couple of probes to send down to the intended landing location to see if that probe is functioning as expected AND THEN send the lander.

But I'm sure all those clever space folk wouldn't make elementary mistakes so they won't need our input. Actually, on second thought...

Comment What's special about apple's cables? (Score 1) 190

Are they angry because after forcing manufacturers to pay for the right to produce cables?

Are other business producing said cables for less because they are not paying apple for the privilege?

Are we really sad for poor apple that it cannot 100% monetize this as well?

Fuck apple. Fuck them in their overpriced iThing.

Comment Re:Ban them from the profession (Score 1) 597

Any doctor or medical professional who supports mandatory vaccination should also be willing to accept liability for any complications that may occur.

That is, if you or your children become paralyzed, autistic or brain damaged after receiving a "safe" vaccine, you should be able to sue their pants off.

I wonder how many doctors (and vaccine manufacturers) would be supporting mandatory vaccinations then?

Yeah because children can become autistic from vaccines...oh wait that was thoroughly debunked ->

I imagine most would still support mandatory vaccines because they SAVE LIVES.

If there's an allergic reaction in 1 out of 10,000 patients then it's safe. Safer than driving a car that's for sure. Some vaccines are safer, and some have related complications, allergic reactions, specifics that are not because the vaccine is evil and causes paralysis but because a unique or extremely rare set of circumstances coincided to combine to a negative result. No, that's not a long winded way to say autism.

It should be mandatory when it's safer to take the miniscule chance of getting a vaccine related complications than not. Then it's safer. "safe" is relative. nothing is 100% safe, not walking in the street, taking a shower not even sleeping is 100% safe.

The first family to produce (with aid or not) evidence that a vaccine has caused their child autism will win a huge amount of money from big pharma. Because of that fact I assure you misguided parents that believe this have bankrupt themselves to prove it.

Comment Ban them from the profession (Score 3, Insightful) 597

If what they are promoting goes against the evidence and leads to harming patient then they should be barred.

Having an opinion is one thing. Holding a position on a verifiable matter, that leads to putting patients at increase risk is at odds with the goal of your profession is a completely different matter.

They want to push some thoroughly debunked agenda? feel free but don't pretend you're a medical professional

Comment Re:Happy about what? (Score 1) 126

Life? Phone? ROI? Value?

Allow me to suggest an alternative to question marks. (Note that I am disagreeing with you)

Happy about about value. What is value? benefit minus the cost.

Can you get the same benefit at a lower cost? -that's the value difference between offerings (in this case phones).

As phones become more of a status symbol the value is less practical and more subjective than ever. The benefit is becoming more subjective as well.

This is why others may envy a person driving a lambo despite the fact the car has very little practical benefit. It is ill-suited to city streets, it has no space, it has poor mileage, expensive to maintain, expensive to insure, needs a lot of parking space and sometimes it's not even comfortable to be in.

Once again we see that "normal" chimps envy other "rich" chimps because those have a stick and a tin can. Why? because they have things other chimps do not have. That has value. Sounds ridiculous? not really. It has social value. Other chimps look up to those stick wielding, can banging "rich" chimps.

The practical value is depending on their ability to influence other chimps. Everyone wants to be friends with those elite chimps. To be in their good graces because they have connections and they "know people" and to maybe get a go with their new gizmo because, let's face it; they have sticks, cans and what do the rest have? -nothing. (possibly everything and a lot better but it's not popular so does not count for much)

The sad thing is that marketing, commercials, product placement etc have found this neural bug in humans that exists in chimps and have fed us the value proposition. We are now somewhat convinced that those happy successful people, they have this special stick that makes special sound on the special can; and that makes them happy! if only we could be happy like them with that stick and tin can imagine what life could be like! -While all the time this has no practical value other than to sell you shit.

Unhappy with life>? let companies that make shit create surveys to help you make a decision to be happier. It's simple; BUY! BUY!! BUY!!!

As the parent post asks what is return On Investment? -theoretically everlasting happiness. Practically your mileage varies on your productivity and specific requirements which most likely mean there is no ROI - it's a net loss but so is alcohol and cigarettes and bubblegum and...

Comment Because of ignorance (Score 2) 160

A lot of people have this great idea about getting in shape, becoming healthier and what not. the problem is all the crap they are fed.

Drink this fucking protein shake, eat 6 meals a day, train HIIT, do weights, callisthenics, 3 times a week, 7 grams of protein per ounce, buy this gizmo, use this electrode belt, avoid fat etc etc.

All-of-a-sudden become fit is a research project. You need 10,000 steps a day, people that take stairs have less chance of heart disease and so on and so on.

Guess what most people do? choose the easy fucking way out. Step 1, buy this fitness device (because you'll need it with all the fitness you're gonna do right?!), step 2 follow magic formula??, step 3 get fit

Here's my "magic formula" to get fit: Move your fucking ass. Do whatever workout you want that is COMPOUND movement at the intensity you can SUSTAIN. Listen to your body, if you're feeling depleted take it easy, if you're feeling pumped put your back into it.

It's the same thing with gym memberships after the Olympics, 2-4 weeks later they never come back. No fucking gizmo is gonna lift those weights, run up that hill or do 100 burpees for you. That's you that has to do that. Do it. -remember that when you're watching other fitter people work. (You know, NFL, NBA, Olympics, they're at work)

Comment Re:Zoning needed - for humans (Score 1) 254

Happy to go with the solution that works.

With gridlocks, careless drivers and odd traffic laws I've come to seriously dislike driving. I'd rather have the option to read or sleep whilst automation takes me from point A to B.

Humans are slower to react, they cannot see as well as a sensor array and they do get distracted. Yet they know not to try to drive under trailers or against traffic. Even the dumbest human has awareness that eclipses these replacement logic programs.

If we need to make driverless the default? -I'm sure that will come one day. Hopefully when we are old and frail and cannot drive anyhow. :-)

Comment Re:Zoning needed (Score 1) 254

Because of the "awareness" bit.

It is not aware. It does not have instincts. I has settings. It dynamic data contradicts the settings it does not learn the settings are wrong.

It can have cameras but the data captures is not used as well as the human eye's data is used with spatial awareness.

I do believe that AI and sensors will eclipse human collision avoidance. The current "AI programs" are far better with reaction times and can even see "through" certain obstacles and around corners. Yet currently that is not enough. It is a substitute for the lack of actual intelligence/awareness.

The failures I see is with how that data is used. It is nowhere near a profound enough manner that an experienced driver can use the information.

If you compare a human driver to a computer program the human would be overwhelmed with the data sensors give him or her. Except the human knows for most of the time what data is relevant and when it's useful.

For example; if I'm driving along on a highway and I can see the driver ahead, he is looking down and has one hand on the wheel. I assume he is on his phone chatting away or checking FB because I notice the vehicle is edging to the side of the lane and then when he has his head up again he corrects and comes back to the center of his lane. I know there is danger to overtake. I might choose not to even attempt to overtake because I know what to do with the information I have.
The Car AI is clueless. It has margins, it has speed data. It may avoid a collision because it's a braking scenario manufacturers have tested but it did not foresee the situation it was entering.

We have the sensors, we have the theory but we simply do not have the AI to handle it all. I think we need driving to be more like a chess board. With predictability and a sandbox type environment. Currently the dynamics of driving, more importantly collision avoidance by foresight is lacking.

Comment Zoning needed (Score 4, Insightful) 254

We need regulating bodies and driverless car makers to agree on standards and zoning.

A driverless car has sensors, not eyes and spatial awareness. It has GPS and map data not a sense of direction.

If the data fed to the car says it can turn into oncoming traffic (and there are no vehicle so the sensors don't alert some wannabe AI) it will turn. Any human that might make the error will very quickly notice they are going the wrong way without the need for cars. the might notice how (most) cars are parked facing in a certain direction or road markings that give clues like "no entry" and the corresponding road markings.

Car AI cannot yet read these properly. Forget reading in time or when it's raining and the sign is slightly eroded or placed at an odd angle.

A human can spot a branch handing on power lines dangling in the wind, a sensor designed to avoid collisions with other cars cannot.

I'm certain that driverless cars will get much better and will very quickly be safer than a human driver despite these and other faults BUT to make it all so much safer we need approved zones. Like zoning for congestion or weight/height limits.

Car manufacturers will know that in these specific zones/highways they can expect a rather predictable set of road conditions. A human can drive the car out of some odd city intersection with angry aggressive drivers in rush-hour then switch to autopilot for that boring and predictable 100 mile highway journey. (Or not if you like that sort of driving)

When a driverless car can navigate A to B across a busy city in India it might be ready to do away with zoning but until then it's simply necessary and I believe it's just a matter of time until zoning happens.

Slashdot Top Deals

Alexander Graham Bell is alive and well in New York, and still waiting for a dial tone.