Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:It's a way of pointing a finger (Score 5, Insightful) 81

They can still itemize the full price if they want to point fingers.

To use the car analogy, when you get an estimate for a repair, they don't give you a base fixed price and then tack on extra in the end for parts and labors for the final cost. The estimate is supposed to be as close to the final cost as they can make it.

So here Comcast could do the same:
      Service is $50 (includes a $6.50 retransmission fee and 10% CEO wallet padding fee).

Comment Re: Really? (Score 1) 596

If two out of three can be wrong, why can't two out of two be wrong? If you have a fail-safe, you should always do it if even one sensor is off, regardless of the majority

But if you don't have a fail-safe, or if the fail-safe is too costly, or if the sensors are not that reliable, with 3 sensors you have more chances to make the right decision by following the two sensors that agree. With with only two sensors, you'll have to follow one of them, i.e. you have a 50-50 chance of making the wrong choice.

Comment Re:That's not what the article says. (Score 1) 27

Nobody said the learning robot shouldn't have a vetting process (which may even be one of those meatbags called "humans").

For that matter, what you're talking about is applicable today but limited to robots of the same kind. So should we disable the save/restore functionality in current robots for the sake of security because a corrupted save from an infected robot could infect another robot?

And even if it was unsafe, researching how to do it is not a bad thing in and of itself. It could still be useful in some way. If researchers had to stop researching potentially unsafe topics, we would never have cars or planes or even the wheel (imagine someone voluntarily rolling a stone wheel down a hill into an innocent passerby, ugh!)

Comment Re:That's not what the article says. (Score 2) 27

Indeed, schwit1 seems that have missed the point article, or at least didn't really explain clearly. The point of the is not about a robot teaching a other robot. That's just a save/restore.
And as you point out, it's not about the teaching part either, i.e. not about how the information is transferred from one robot to another, that's just simple shared database and a network connection.

It's about what is transferred from any robot to any other robot, and in particular, robots of different types, with different sensors and different actuators, so that the later robot can do the same job as the former.
In other words, the problem being solved is how to store the knowledge of one kind of robot so that it can be understood by another kind.

Comment Re:Autoimmune disorder... (Score 1) 350

And then when someone calls 911 because of a real hostage situation or bomb threat, then people go all up in arms because SWAT was too slow, never mind that they were only checking if the call was legit.

What's scary is how people always overreact, no matter what, and require blood if the outcome doesn't please them, even if everything was done right otherwise.

Comment Re:And A Rebuttal (Score 1) 360

What if the movie is an independent movie with a little to no budget? They are commercial but can't always afford the copyright license? How is school play not a derivative works but a broadway show is?

The real issue here is that we just don't want rich people for profiteering from others without fair compensation while helping less fortunate people to benefit from older works. We want the "assets" (money, copyrights, patents, ...) to trickle down and not up. But how do we decide who is "up" and who is "down"?

Comment Re:How about the nodes (Score 1) 234

Did you read that definition of yours? "Anonymity is the penultimate of privacy" implies that anonymity is a part of privacy, that privacy is a super-set of anonymity. It is not. You can have anonymity without privacy. That's what Tor is. It ensures that nobody can know *who* is doing something. It doesn't prevent one from knowing *what* is being done. One just needs to be the exit node or sit in front of the target server (or anywhere in between those two) to know that "what". If one wants privacy, one should use an end-to-end encryption like SSL.

So yes, I reconsidered my terminology and stand by what I said.

Comment Re:How about the nodes (Score 1) 234

By strict definition, TOR doesn't ensure privacy. Your connection still ends up somewhere on the regular Internet and whatever you post in Slashdot will be visible by everybody. What TOR ensures is anonymity.

Slashdot Top Deals

Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.