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:whew. (Score 2) 58

Trump is too busy starting a war with China by talking to Taiwan.

Yeah, that's the last straw. Taking a congratulatory phone call from a foreign leader is totally going to push China into attacking us. But the Obama administration selling Taiwan billions of dollars worth of sophisticated weapons systems, that's nothing that the Chinese would worry about.

Do you even listen to yourself?

Comment Re:Nope (Score 1) 435

Welfare 1.0 had (and still has) some really serious problems that made it incredibly difficult to escape from - As a gross oversimplification, every $1 you earn means you lose $2 in benefits - an extremely demotivating situation that rewards resignation and deceit (You only lose the benefits if you admit you earned the money)

Something like a universal basic income though doesn't carry those problems - you get $X amount of benefits no matter what, and every dollar you earn goes straight into your pocket. Early tests have shown that it may actually encourage people to work harder/more effectively, with virtually all work reduction being directly attributable to taking longer to look for more rewarding employment and/or pursuing further education.

Comment Re:Nope (Score 1) 435

Probably because that level of AI sophistication is going to be considerably more challenging to achieve than the level required to replace most human labor. Janitors and lab technicians will be replaced long before the likes of Einstein. We may get there eventually, but even if it only takes a few extra decades it will be far too late to do much good.

Comment Re:Too much to express here, but (Score 1) 435

True. We could just eliminate the excess 90+% of the population instead.

Only problem is that, once you do that, you only need 10% as many robots to do the work, and 10% as many technicians to maintain them, making roughly 90% of the remaining population once again superfluous.

Automation has been sold as "labor saving devices" pretty much since day one, but in practice it's mostly been used as labor-amplifying devices instead, so that everyone still does just as much work, but is much more productive. Unfortunately that breaks down once the automation reaches a level of sophistication that exceeds that of most humans. When 90% of the work done in a business can be automated, and only the most talented humans have anything to offer, then you have a major social and economic problem on your hands - and that situation is approaching rapidly.

Theoretically we could all move to service-sector jobs where "the human touch" is appreciated - but how many people will honestly want to pay 5x as much to be served by a slow, imperfect human, when a robot could do the same job perfectly in a fraction of the time? It's not unlike the situation that allows Walmart and the like to sell mountains of shoddy merchandise - at the time of purchase, price is an incredibly powerful motivator. And it's worse, because in almost every case, aside from the ephemeral "human touch", the robot service will be objectively superior.

Comment Re:This MUST be fake news (Score 1) 211

That might work if you could rely on the damage being restricted to the USB ports, but really that's the best-case scenario. For starters, the same chip that handles integrated USB ports usually controls a large number of other data buses as well - SATA, PCI, etc. Even if the damage doesn't spread to the drives, expansion cards, etc, you'd probably need to replace the motherboard before you could use them again.

Comment Re:What the HE double hocky sticks (Score 1) 211

Not really - any idiot can wire a USB plug onto the end of a power cord and get much the same result. In fact, feeding wall power to pretty much anything not designed for it is likely to do moderate to severe damage. The only use case for this is to do it more discretely, and/r trick someone else into doing it. I.e. it's little more than a particularly expensive and malicious "gag gift" for total assholes.

Comment Re:So much for public charging locations (Score 1) 211

Mostly they do, though they may just be connected to resistors to indicate that they can provide more than the default 0.1A defined by the USB standard (the standard allows for up to 0.5A, but *only* if your device has successfully negotiated for it with the host controller)

Comment Re:Boko Haram? (Score 1) 292

the impacts of climate change were already factors in the conflicts driving a current crisis of migration into Europe, having been linked to the Arab Spring, the war in Syria and the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency

Boko Haram's name, translated, means "Western/Non-Islamic Education Is A Sin." They kill and rape in the name of that message. TFS directly links Boko Haram's insurgency to climate change.

It is a read hearing

The term you're looking for is "red herring." Red, the color, and herring, the fish. It comes from a technique used in training and testing fox hounds, to see if they can be too easily distracted.

So you're right, but only by accident, for the wrong reasons. The summary is trying to distract you from the evils of groups like Boko Haram by somehow making their willingness to slaughter villages and take hundreds of young girls into the jungle where they are then sold off as sex slaves somehow about climate change, rather than about the very reasons they plainly state that they do those exact things. People like you who try to tell those Africans that they're too dumb to know what they're saying, and that it's really the fault of climate change that they're murdering and raping their way through areas they're trying to convert to Islam ... people who trot that crap out are the worst sort of patronizing, condescending, smug racists one ever comes across. Quick! Absolve them of their ideology and actions because they're too simple, as a people, to realize that it's climate change and not the culture they're embracing that causes them to murder, torture, and rape! Whew, dodged a bullet there - wouldn't want to ever judge anybody, because every world view is equally valid, unless you're from a western democracy, in which case you're evil because climate change. Except that very dismissal judges them as too mentally inferior to resist murdering and raping, because ... climate change.

Which "smooth talk" is it that you think is somehow more persuasive in the context of climate change that makes someone who would otherwise not murder a girl's family in front of her eyes before assigning her to a rape camp ... suddenly change their world view and decide that's the right way to be? What would it take YOU to be convinced that's the way to gain political power? Or are you saying you, personally, could not be convinced to think that's OK, but those people in Africa are somehow by disposition more easily persuaded to take up that way of life, especially because Climate Change?

Comment Re: Trump! (Score 1) 502

Right. If you own stock, you own it. If it becomes nearly worthless, you own nearly worthless stock. You can choose to sell it or walk away from it ... but no, you don't get it taken from you by the Obama administration who then props it up with government loans so it's once again worth something and then have it handed over to political supporters as a prize.

Comment Re:Boko Haram? (Score 1) 292

So, instead of rambling on, how about specifically explaining how Boko Haram's murdering of villages full of people and kidnapping the young girls and subjecting them to gang rapes and forced marriage is a function of climate change. Be very specific. How does the climate change cause the rape? When a man decides to rape a woman and tells her village it's because they're not Muslim, what is the actual, climate-based reason for that rape? Specifically, please.

Comment Re:Trump! (Score 1) 502

It wasn't stolen from GM, it was stolen from the investors who owned the stock. Which you know. There wasn't anything "normal" about that transaction. Especially the part where it wasn't really a transaction at all, but a government-enforced transfer of wealth from private investors and retirement funds into the hands of a politicized labor union. Which you know.

Comment Re:1st amendment issue (Score 1) 1039

On Twitter, even if you don't follow a person, they can still send you messages. To give another example I encountered (albeit not one involving "hate speech"), this woman online decided that I was the same person as another guy she had a problem with. Her proof? We both like photography. (She's not all there. She also claims to be a prophet of god and that god talks to her and tells her these things. Obviously, saying "you're mistaken" doesn't work.) She would harass me constantly on Twitter and, eventually, on my blog. I ignored it, but still it was annoying to come back and see a dozen messages from her. I'd block/report her and her account would be taken down, but she'd just start a new one up. (At one point, I and a few other people she was harassing found out that she had set up around a dozen accounts ahead of time for the inevitable account suspension.)

Now, her speech to me wasn't hate speech. (She was accusing me of murder/hacking/doing obscene stuff to kids/etc because god told her.) Still, she could easily have been sending me hate speech instead. Is my option in this situation "just shut down my Twitter account and don't use it anymore"? Is the only option for someone who is being harassed to leave the place where they are being harassed?

As far as deporting illegal immigrants goes, I don't see discussing it and the various policy proposals as being hate speech. It's HOW it's discussed that's the bigger issue. Saying "we should deport those illegal immigrants" is fine. Saying "all [derogatory term for Mexicans] should be rounded up and shot" obviously isn't the same thing. I welcome a rational immigration discussion. Unfortunately, there are many who use the discussion's opening to shout racist rants. This hurts both sides as the left reacts to the racists and the right has their reasonable plans drowned out by hate. (It's one reason why I'm hoping the GOP will fracture so that it can kick out the crazies and reformulate itself as a Reasonable Conservative party. I might be left-of-center, but I want reasonable options out there to keep the Democrats in check.)

Finally, I agree that I wouldn't want to see Twitter, Facebook, etc ban people for spurious reasons. People shouldn't be banned because the CEO of Twitter believes X and someone tried posting a reasonable argument why X is wrong. However, if someone is posting pure hatred and is harassing people, they should be kicked off. That's not fostering communication. That's trying to scare people into silence so the racists/bigots can force their view onto America.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." - Corporal Hicks, in "Aliens"