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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Too many of them aren't worth following (Score 1) 307

I think the variety of real life would be more interesting. The cop bitching about a bum knee might stop him from getting his 20 years in, the secretary blowing the boss. Dirty cops, racist cops, cops that actually try to help people, cops that give a damn but are incompetent etc.

You should absolutely watch "The Wire."

Comment Re:i'm sorry... (Score 1) 134

Fact is that the top earners of the country pay the vast majority of all income tax dollars I thought I did a post last week where I showed the math and sourced appropriate irs.gov docs, but I can't find it. The gist: The numbers showed that the top 1% of earners paid something like 30% of ALL tax dollars received (as of 2008 - when things were supposed to be best for "the rich" due to Bush); the top 5% paid over 50%; and the top 10% paid something like 70%.

Ok, so I see this a lot but what never seem to be mentioned is what percentage of total income is make by the people in those upper brackets.

If the to 1% make 50% of all earned income and only pay 30% of income taxes then it seems that they might be under taxed. The problem I have is that I don't really know how much the top 1%, 5%, or 10% make compared to the rest of the income earning population. Maybe someone with better than my poor Google skills can find an uncontroversial source for those numbers.

It's not that this necessarily invalidates your point, just that without the missing information I have no way to judge and yet I keep seeing similar posts to yours which kind of bothers me.


Comment Re:Real world already knows this (Score 1) 172

The city I moved from last year upgraded all their meters to electronic ones. When you arrive you punch the spot number into a machine that takes coins or credit. You can also add money from your phone, so you don't need to return to fill up the meter. Enforcement is by a Google Streets-style car that drives around and records license plate numbers. There's no discretion. If your car is there when they go past and you haven't paid, you get a ticket.

I've never heard of a meter maid covering up a parking signs. I'm not American though. Perhaps you have more corruption than we do.

Comment Re:Speaking as a teacher... (Score 1) 554

If your lectures are so bad you have to force students to attend, then maybe you should spend more time honing your teaching skills and less time on the Draconian tracking systems

I find it quite rare that every student is interested in the topic, regardless of the professors teaching skills. The next time you teach a class ask your students "Where would you rather be than here" and see if anyone says "nowhere". The difference is some people choose to act on that, even if you are an incredibly interesting and engaging teacher.

Comment Re:Forced to include in EU? (Score 1) 292

First! (Presumably) I wonder how this will play out in EU where MS was forced to include multiple browsers...

Doubtful because Apple isn't as large as Microsoft and therefor not considered a threat of a monopoly. Even in the smart phone business. So while there is competition, there can't be a forcing like this.

Comment Re:subversive? (Score 1) 849

Well I guess they could. They could go down to SC and register and then, when the government tried to bust them for being subversives point out that having a law that requires you to testify against yourself is in violation of the Fifth Amendment much like Tim Leary did when this country passed the Marihuana Tax Act I mean, making the government and law makers look like a bunch of uneducated douches is kinda subversive act.

Comment Re:Turing, not long. The rest... wait a long time. (Score 2, Interesting) 979

I am, and have been, aware of all this.

Please show me how any of these represent major advances in AI, as opposed to just more processing power and some programming trickery. A clever program still does not represent artificial intelligence.

I am a software engineer by trade, and hardware is something of a hobby of mine. I have been keeping up. And while computing has done some awesome things in the last decade or so, I still have not seen anything that qualifies as a "breakthrough" in AI.

The only way the advances that have been made will lead to AI is if, as I stated, intelligence is more a matter of quantity over quality. And I am not convinced that it is.

The examples you gave, with the possible exception of Robinson's Conjecture, are all special-purpose software or tasks that can reasonably be expected to improve by throwing mere brute force and (human-written) programming behind them. But they will never pass a Turing test or make you a good martini. For the most part the AI question is really more about how a task is being accomplished, than what is being accomplished.

Some of the early computer proofs were seriously questioned because they made use of iterative methods that processed much more data than the verifiers could reasonably be expected to examine any other way. (And iterative methods are what computers have always been good at; they seem to have little in common with AI.) It came close to a situation where it would take one or more other computer programs to verify the validity of the software used, which could literally lead to an endless regression. Not because of any "intelligence" involved, but simply because of the sheer amount of computation.

(I should note that no endless regression should be necessary unless the problem under consideration is NP-complete, in which case there is no way to know in advance.)

In any case, in that context, I would not pretend to make a judgment about how Robinson's Conjecture was proven without knowing more about how it was proven. I know what it is, but I know nothing about the proof.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry