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 More Propagandists Claiming to Be Non-Partisan (Score 3, Insightful) 261

Those links expose TED as censor-happy authoritarians, who (despite their "Ideas Worth Spreading" slogan) abuse the DMCA to prevent fair use of their content for criticism. The claims in the summary of TED being a "non-partisan organization" and wanting to "steer the conversation away from government and politics" are laughable, given TED's repeated attempts to suppress dissent.

They do not want to start a "civil" conversation or "reasoned discourse" or a "bridge between opposing views" or any of the sounds-good buzzword BS rattled off in the summary; they want start a monologue of approved ideas while everyone else (especially wrongthinkers) has to shut up and unquestionably accept what they're hearing.

Comment Ideas Worth Censoring (Score 4, Interesting) 261

TED's been posting some hopelessly feminist content lately, and they know it, too, because they've disabled ratings and comments on those vids. They're also abusing the DMCA to shut down criticism:

The DMCA-censored vid:

And an update:

Comment Stories Out of Order on Front Page (Score 3, Insightful) 46

Even though this is currently the newest article, the "Favorite Sci Fi Movie" is the first on the front page.

Editor's note: the story has been moved up on the front page due its popularity.

Stop it. I scan new articles from the top of the front page down until I hit one I've already seen (on the last visit). I don't want article I'm finished with popping up again at the top.

Comment Speed Bump (Score 1) 237

AIs are vulnerable to these attacks because they try to come to a conclusion using as little information as possible, while humans robustly "overthink" things by inefficiently considering too many otherwise irrelevant factors. These attacks sound like something AIs will quickly adapt to, surpassing human performance once again.

One computer academic says that unlike a spam-blocker, "if you're relying on the vision system in a self-driving car to know where to go and not crash into anything, then the stakes are much higher," adding ominously that "The only way to completely avoid this is to have a perfect model that is right all the time."

Fine, but you only need a great model that's right more often than humans.

Comment Well Done (Score 1) 94

The problem line is [oneish integerValue], which returns zero, and the rest of your code is just trying to obfuscate this.

Congratulations, you're the first (across three different comment threads) to point that out (though some of the trolls were entertaining).

This is unexpected, but not undocumented. See the Subclassing Notes at:


I'll note that in Swift, integerValue no longer exists, having been folded into intValue, which gives the expected result of one (just like intValue in Objective-C).

Looks more like a 64-bit issue.

Note that if you use one fewer significant digit (e.g. @"1.111111111111111111" instead of @"1.1111111111111111111") the code works properly. That crosses the threshold where 64-bit integers overflow, which suggests a problem with the conversion used in integerValue. The 32-bit intValue always works properly, as does integerValue on 32-bit systems (where NSInteger is 32-bit, like a regular int).

Comment Proof in the Numbers (Score -1, Flamebait) 94

It's one thing to introduce another new bit of consumer electronics kit. It's an entirely other thing to get a medical device past the FDA.

And yet another thing to get basic math right. Run this on OSX, then see if you trust Apple to make medical equipment:

#import <Cocoa/Cocoa.h>

int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {

NSDecimalNumber *oneish =
[NSDecimalNumber decimalNumberWithString:@"1.1111111111111111111"];

NSInteger two = 3 - [oneish intValue];
NSInteger othertwo = 3 - [oneish integerValue];

NSLog(@"2 + 2 = %ld", two + othertwo);

return 0;


Comment Designed from the Ground Up for Ads, Not Games (Score 5, Informative) 115

- $100 higher price to cover the cost of Kinect -- a device few wanted

What do you mean nobody wanted a microphone and HD camera focused 24/7 on their living room or bedroom (or kid's bedroom)?

It was also intended as a platform to force-feed ads, first and foremost:

So what about the future of advertising on the Xbox One? “It’s going to be an exciting transition though because the 360 console wasn’t built with advertising in mind, it was more of an afterthought, so we’ve had to adapt to the technology and how we work to fit them in to the console,” said Technical Account Manager for Xbox LIVE Advertising, “whereas this new one is going to have advertising in mind. So a lot of the limitations that we have now, hopefully the release of the boundaries will widened so the opportunities will be a lot greater.”


The Xbox is developing native advertising, where ad content is displayed alongside relevant material, either embedded in search results, promoted on a network like Facebook, or a "Liked X? You'll Love Y!" style of marketing. Not to worry, though -- the company plans to use Kinect to make these advertisements even more engaging than their current counterparts. In the future, Kinect may offer you a "Choose Your Own Adventure" style narrative in which you speak commands or give orders to an ad as its playing to change the final outcome.

The other way the company wants to use Kinect is to monitor what's going on in the living room to serve you group-appropriate content, rather than resorting to the plain old method of bombarding you with non-interactive advertising for things you don't care about. Microsoft claims that the demographic data the ad team can access is very limited, but it's hard not to see shadows of the same patent for movie licensing that the company applied for last year.

Comment But Dissent is Now HATE (Score 5, Insightful) 301

Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.

Disagreement is now harrassment.
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.
Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.

The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.

A popular tranny just had two of her YT videos demonitized, one that criticized Islam, and another that criticized feminism:

Comment Selectively Banning Racism (Score 3, Insightful) 202

A business deciding they're not going to allow certain kinds of messages on their public bulletin board is no more censorship than me ordering my racist uncle to stop talking trash or get out of my house.

Which is only to say that "Yes, both situations are examples of censorship."

To make the metaphor more accurate to what Twitter is doing, let's say you had two uncles, each a different color and both racist toward the other. Now let's say you picked sides and only threw out the uncle whose racism you disagreed with.

Even if you are within your rights to do that, the banned uncle (and plenty of other, non-racist folks) are right to call you out for both your hypocrisy and your own racism.

Comment First Amendment a Common Strawman (Score 2) 202

Generally when censorship is brought up here, it's an attempt to conflate First Amendment protections with a private organization's lawful right to moderate content.

That's funny, because the way I usually see it go on /. is that the pro-censorship side (i.e. you) brings up 1AM/government censorship first, as a strawman so they can claim that, because it doesn't apply, we should care about private censorship either. The concept of free speech (and censorship) still exists outside of the 1AM (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters). The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment [aclu.org] wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.

Slashdot Top Deals

All the simple programs have been written.