Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:This needs to stay (Score 1) 117

It's one of the few things the EPA does that's useful and efficient. Setting a national standard is well within the things that government should do. Compared to all the really wasteful things they do this should certainly be kept.

Except it's the manufacturers that self-report their own idea of efficiency, essentially self-awarding themselves this meaningless label. You'll recall the famous experiment where someone sent in an Energy Star application featuring their design for a gasoline powered alarm clock. Which was of course granted Energy Star status, not only sight-unseen, but obviously without even a moment's critical thinking on the part of whatever bureaucratic clerk is holding the exact job that Trump very reasonably considers a waste of your taxes. If consumers want a real standard, they should embrace something the Underwriters Laboratories standard for safety. Privately run, and rigorous.

Comment Re:Is anyone falling for this? (Score 1) 106

Which part? Referencing Wolf Blitzer referring to a non-existent "Muslim ban?" Or MSNBC spending a day lying about how Rachel Maddow was going to "release Trump's taxes?" Typical liberal, you, carefully avoiding the topic and going for lazy ad hominem instead. Because you sure wouldn't want to address the points being made - that would require you to acknowledge that they refer to actual things that make your preferred narrative less truthy-feeling. Can't have that. No! I love how in a discussion about fake news, you're asserting that the person relaying simple (and verifiable by you) facts is virulently ignorant. Thanks for proving my point. Good to have your help.

Comment Re: Correcting myself (Score 2) 629

I am pretty sure that "we don't want shopping malls to fall on our heads" count as a strong government and public interest.

Yes, I agree, but we're not talking about people misrepresenting their qualifications designing buildings, we're talking about people saying they're qualified to discuss timings for amber lights.

Restricting phrases like "I am an engineer" in the context of someone making final technical decisions concerning building design arguably makes sense, but it's no longer "narrow conditions" when you restrict such a vague, ambiguous, phrase under all circumstances.

I say arguably because if the conversation is something like:

Isaac: I say old bean, you're putting the wrong tensile cable on that suspension bridge of yours. Here, use this rope, should be strong enough
Isambard: Who the fuck are you? What is this crap?
Isaac: You can trust me. I'm an engineer!
Isambard: Oh OK. Hold a moment. There. Oh fuck, the bridge collapsed! I thought you said you're an engineer!
Isaac: I am. An IEEE certified software engineer! I know PHP! Whoopwhoop!

...then that law is obviously a waste of time anyway.

Comment Re:Is anyone falling for this? (Score 2) 106

So you are unable to actually understand that a temporary immigration halt that impacts under 10% of Muslims in the world (only a tiny, tiny fraction of which would be looking to immigrate anyway) is ... something that it's not? Please explain how the current Muslim ban works. Details, please.

Comment Re:Is anyone falling for this? (Score 3, Insightful) 106

You are making up an alternative meaning for the phrase fake news.

Nah. It's well understood at this point to mean, "People using widely consumed platforms to spread information they know is incorrect, and doing so while presenting those lies as facts." So, when someone on CNN says there is a "Muslim ban," they know they're lying and that they're producing and spreading fake news. You know they are, their informed audience knows it's fake, and some small number of non-critical-thinking dolts take it as fact. But it's fake news. Click-bait factories in Eastern Europe are NOT the only or even a predominant source of this. Most of it comes right out of mainstream media habitats right in the US.

It is the easiest way to make money there.

It's true. When an operation like MSNBC spends an entire news cycle hyping the fact that their head fake-news-talking-head is going to "release Trump's taxes," when they know perfectly well they have no such thing and will do no such thing (except a readily available snipped that - even by itself - undermines their own narrative) ... when that happens, and they get a big ratings boost from that lie, yeah - easy money if they don't care about the fact they have to lie to do it.

Efforts to identify and remove fake news have no political intent

Hilarious.

Comment Re:Life's unfair (Score 1) 262

There doesn't need to be any unfairness here, FWIW. Well, OK, maybe if you want everyone to be part of the exact same MMORPG, but if that's not an issue (simple arena matches), why not have servers... all across the world? Including Hawaii? Each player just connects to the lowest latency server available to them to play with others connected to that server?

Doesn't that pretty much fix the problem?

Comment Re:Coordination, not more text (Score 2) 178

Let's see the same story, as published by the Squiggleslash Gazette:

Today Jimmy Wales, known for eating children, announced a new web site whose job will be collecting articles critical of the Trump administration, identifying journalists who are critics of the regime, so that Wales can go to their homes and murder them one by one.

There. That should satisfy for wish for multiple viewpoints. Questions for you:

1. Is it remotely accurate?
2. Is it more true than the summary or the article linked to?
3. Is the truth "somewhere in the middle": the original article says nothing about Wales murdering anyone, so is just a little bit of a child murderer, and is he maybe going to go to Journalists homes and just slightly murder them?
4. Is the viewpoint of the Squiggleslash Gazette worth even a split second of your time?
5. When you read the version of the story, as reported by the Squiggleslash Gazette, were you more informed, or did it make you dumber?

Compare two articles reporting on global warming. One quotes scientists, and accurately reports that the consensus within the scientific community is that smoking causes lung cancer The other fails to report that consensus, and includes only interviews with two denialists, both of whom superficially have qualifications related to health (maybe a practicing family doctor, and the director of a think tank's healthcare policy division) but neither of whom reflect the views of the majority of scientists studying in the area, and who have been found, repeatedly, to lie or misrepresent evidence. The second article presents the views of the denialists as either mainstream within medical science, or normal within science as if there's a legitimate dispute.

Is the truth "somewhere in the middle" for those two articles? Does it help you reach an informed decision to include exposure to information known to be false, without being told it's false? Are you helped if you're essentially lied to?

Comment Professional journalists? (Score 3, Insightful) 178

Professional journalists are some of the highest-profile PRODUCERS of fake news. I accidentally tuned to CNN the other night. Holy mackerel. I had no idea that Chicago's rampant crime problem only got really bad when the new administration put the new nation-wide Muslim ban in place. Hopefully Jimmy Wales won't be looking to get Wolf Blitzer involved in fighting fake news, because that's like getting gasoline involved in fighting a fire.

Comment Re:I hate them all (Score 1) 202

T-Mobile neglected to mention the "Regulatory Compliance Fees" that added $15/mo to my bill (and made them look like taxes when they're not, and no, they're not the fees for giving poor folks phone access, those have a separate line item)

That's pretty much true of all cellular companies, I've never come across one until recently that doesn't outright lie about their prices, omitting stuff like the universal service fee that's actually a cost of doing business. They lobby quite extensively to the FCC to get the FCC to agree they should be able to lie about their prices in their ads by omitting various costs-of-doing-business and adding them to bills as mandatory add-ons.

The one carrier that doesn't? Well... actually it's T-Mobile. No, not accusing you of lying, you were right up until a few months ago, it's just they've finally started to be honest about it with their T-Mobile One plan, where the prices quoted are all-inclusive.

Comment Re:Wow. (Score 1) 196

Yes Sir, that's another one of our great hits! Between you me and the fence post, we're also looking into commissioning a pilot for a new show called NCIS:Cyber, featuring the Naval Criminal Intelligence agencies that protect our brave Marines from hackers.

Also, I don't know if you like to laugh (who doesn't?) but we're looking for some top notch comedy writers for our humorous look at the "science" world, The Big Bang Theory. If you think you have what it takes, and are familiar with the kinds of shows nerds watch, like The Star Trek, and Firebug, send us your resume and some samples of your work, and maybe you can join our writing team!

- LM

Comment Re:Still a dream (Score 1) 148

It's almost certainly a hell of a lot easier to build a self-driving flying car than it is to build a self driving regular car. Regular cars have to follow roads, watch for people in unexpected places, adapt to road works, etc. Flying cars just need a rough direction to go in, and the ability to detect obstacles, with three dimensions to move around in to dodge them.

If that weren't the case, and we weren't able to create a self driving technology, I'd still question the logic that it's somehow more difficult to manually control something like this than it is a regular car. Why? What makes it harder?

Comment Embarrassement of riches... (Score 1) 287

Having tools/AI that can increasingly automate tasks is basically the fulfillment of the wish of anyone wanting things done.

Lots of people here are programmers and developers and engineers - basically the modern-day,real-life equivalent of genies, folks who can basically make anything happen, but with the cost of needing to REALLY draw out the exact desire so that the result isn't worse than the problem.

So, over time, the humble dish washer gets a bucket, then a sink, then a dish washing machine, and eventually an automatic servant that will do every classical part of the task given enough economy of scale.

The big consequence of this is that we're faced with big questions again about what we want. We have enough shared power and resources to feed everyone, to free ourselves of the most difficult, dangerous and annoying tasks of life.

On the other hand, we have our economic system. Basically, the monetary system, where folks trade services and items for various currencies, based on markets and occasionally governing bodies.

The bulk of the money is tied up in the hands of a relatively small percentage of individuals who saved large amounts of money, looking to get an optimal percentage return on that investment.

This global pool of money is essentially what makes most publicly-traded corporations act exactly like 'corporations', where image to investors is the primary goal, and actually performing as a company is secondary.

Service to this logic is basically deeply, DEEPLY embedded in psyche and even deep morality of most of the modern adult population. The idea of not spending one's waking life in service to maximizing income, either in managing a company or performing tasks for one, is deeply shameful to most.

There's going to come a point though, when the tasks of performing the role of managing most companies is going to be >95% automation, and the remaining <5% is not going to be a reliable way of fulfilling the 'need' to let most of the population avoid the shame of being a poor return on investment, since automation will always be a better investment once it advances a little.

We're going to have to figure out what we want from ourselves. That's not a very difficult task individually, but as a group, it's going to be tumultuous.

The wealthy investors and funds will still demand return on investment, but the increasing percentage of the population unable to prove a return on investment will still have real needs, and have increasing government power.

In this conflict between shrinking (but increasingly wealthy) investor class versus growing government class, the government side would in theory win in the end, though we'd likely encounter several rounds of crazy outcomes like Donald Trump being president.

The longer-term outcome is likely still not going to be some star-trek utopia, but it won't be Somalia either. It's going to be the usual mix we see in history, with the trends extended - less average violence, occasional crazy decisions and wars, endless fads, 95% junk/5% awesome, the old afraid kids are going bad, while the kids are actually measurably smarter over time.

Our AIs are still going to be very dumb for a long time, but they will let us have slightly less absurd goals for our own lives, than figuring out how to scam some global investment class out of currency as some sacred life goal.

Until then though, we hobble along as we can, advancing what we can.

Ryan Fenton

PS: Yeah, can't avoid posting this URL:
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Slashdot Top Deals

Torque is cheap.

Working...