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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Why is Amazon/Alexa even saving recordings? (Score 1) 112

From a debugging perspective, it's probably much easier to unit test and fine-tune the algorithms based on the raw speech as then at least the human developer can listen to the audio and compare it to the produced output.

And, of course, in my experience, once such debug capabilities are turned on, there's no impetus later in the cycle to turn them off. I'm just as guilty in that regard as anyone else I know, sometimes probably worse as I end up turning on even more debug information later in the cycle than we had at the beginning.

Comment Re:so... (Score 2) 600

I don't know if it's a general rule for everyone, but I got called racist for opposing Obama's socialist tendencies in 2008 before he even became president, and was still campaigning. I got it regularly, and I don't care about the colour of his skin (any more than I care about the orange-tinge of Trump's skin).

I saw it so often that I can't believe anyone couldn't see it. In fact, if anything, it's that sort of knee-jerk name-calling of anyone who didn't fully embrace the Obama/Clinton progressive line that most likely cost HRC the election. Sure, people on the coasts didn't mind because they were intelligent enough and progressive enough to vote for Obama purely on the colour of his skin, or Clinton on the gender she identifies as, and were sorry for all their unearned privilege. But the people in the flyover states, even ones that traditionally have been Democrat strongholds, have apparently tired of this "hyperbole and untrue" experience. Except it's neither hyperbole nor untrue.

Personally, I'd rather Trump wasn't president. I suspect many, if not most, people who voted for Trump also would rather he wasn't president. However, when his opponent drops into name calling ("deplorables" likely did as much as anything to sink Clinton's campaign), most didn't see much choice.

I'm just hoping he's a one-term president at this point. But if the Democrats continue to blame everyone but themselves for their loss, I'm not holding my breath.

Comment Re:Proper Authorities (Score 1) 1321

In order to take it to court, I imagine one must have standing to sue. A single elector may have trouble proving standing, as their one vote, by itself, is unlikely to tilt the election. However, there's no disputing (I think) that Clinton would suffer irreparable harm, assuming the results are tampered. She has standing. The academics do not.

To disclaim bias, I say this happy that Clinton did not win. (But not happy that Trump won... sigh) As I've said before, I'd rather honesty and transparency than fraud, regardless of what that brings to light. If Clinton should have been the legal winner of those college votes, then she should have them, and should sue to get that done. Though I can understand a reluctance - undermining the fiction of votes counting also undermines the validity of future Democrat presidents, not just the current Republican president-elect, and her chances of winning are likely quite low. There's little upside to the challenge for her, and great downside for her party.

Comment Yes. (Score 3, Insightful) 361

As long as what they report on is true and unbiased, yes. I don't care if it's on the HRC campaign or the Trump campaign, as long as it is objectively true. I would rather the politicians were honest and transparent, and if it takes a foreign power to force it, I have a hard time complaining.

Leave the pontificating to the pundits. Journalists should merely report the truth.

And, no, I don't care for Hillary "embarrassing" herself. That may be truthful, but it's not any more germane to the discussion than Trump embarrassing himself (even though that gets reported on as well on a regular basis - we don't need Russian interference to see it). The juicy bits, such as it were, would be any case of unethical and/or illegal behaviour. I haven't really followed the leaks, so I don't know if there is any such bits in there. Ideally, all candidates would behave in perfectly ethical manners, but few do. I doubt HRC or Trump do, and that's what should be reported on.

The standard should be "truth" and not "where it comes from." We reserve that standard for the justice system where unethical police officers could get away with illegal behaviour to make a case without those limits.

Comment Re:So they're going to release Hillary news when? (Score 4, Insightful) 160

You don't think they could imagine more useful purposes to put that information?

Maybe they don't want Obama to know what they know. Maybe they want to wait for HRC to get into the White House (everyone knew she'd be running this year) to blackmail her. The Russians have absolutely zero interest in American justice being served, why would they release it at all?

Slashdot Top Deals

Thus spake the master programmer: "Time for you to leave." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Working...