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. ×

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 787

The difference between Sweden now and then is that now he's of less interest to the US, and would have to face charges.

I'm not implying guilt. I don't know exactly what happened. I've read statements, but I don't trust them.

Extradition does not prove guilt. Extradition proves that a person is alleged to have committed a certain act that is a crime in both countries, and usually that the allegation has some evidence behind it. It's proof that there is a reasonable accusation of criminal acts.

So far, I see nothing to contradict the prima facie account that Assange moved to Sweden, thinking he was reasonably safe, had sexual intercourse with two women, was accused of rape (specifically, of acts the UK considers rape), left for the UK, and is simply trying to avoid facing Swedish courts. I don't trust his honesty, and his talk of the US is just talk on his part, not backed up by anything I've seen.

Comment Re:oh yes I DID! (Score 1) 210

I've got the diagnoses. Therefore, I'm mentally ill, although it usually doesn't show. I also have some physical illnesses you won't notice by looking at me. I'm reasonably healthy for my age, and I know a lot of contemporaries who are worse off, but I'm not in perfect health.

I'm emphasizing this because I really hate "mentally ill" being used as an insult, and it often is. APK does not necessarily have a mental illness; APK might just be an asshole, which is not a category in DSM-V. There are mentally healthy people I wouldn't trust with a burned-out match.

Comment Re:Down with Putin - Down with Trump (Score 1) 262

In other words, you completely agree with me that nobody's been criminally prosecuted for doing what Clinton did. I'm aware of cases of losing a job and/or a security clearance, but not ones involving criminal prosecution. I'm not sure exactly who your last reference was, but if it's who I think it is he agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but didn't have to (Clinton probably had something to do with that). That's not criminal prosecution.

Comment Re:Wholly Delusion Batman! (Score 1) 262

False statement. Such a server would be illegal now, since a law was passed the year after Kerry took over at State. That doesn't imply that there were no illegal things done.

Comey didn't say that Clinton broke no laws. He said she wouldn't be prosecuted. This is entirely in line with how previous people who did much the same thing as Clinton were treated. I've been asking for counterexamples for months, and trying to find one, and people still keep ignoring the fact that people who accidentally mishandle classified information are not criminally prosecuted. Period.

Comment "Quiet title action" (Score 3, Interesting) 36

The previous story about Zuckerberg's lawsuit caused me to do a little research. I have never thought much of the man, but there's really nothing wrong with the court action he's taken in Hawaii. What he's doing is a an "action to quiet title". Basically, he has already purchased the plots of land in question, from the majority owners. The problem is that the title to this land is unclear, because there are also many minority owners, most of whom really have no idea they own anything.

An action to quiet title is a court proceeding used to deal with such fuzzy ownership situations, to clarify them so that clear and unambiguous ownership can be established. It involves a process to find and identify owners so they can be negotiated with, or in the event they can't be found to legally remove their ownership to clear up the title. That last bit is unfortunate, but there's really no other way in cases where the ownership in question goes back many generations and has never been documented. The alternative is to leave the legal ownership of the property in limbo. I guess Zuck could do that, but if I were in his shoes I wouldn't want that... and I know because I am more or less in his shoes.

My wife inherited some property from her father. We have a "quit claim" deed that legally transfers the property to us, and my father-in-law had a quit claim deed from the previous owner, and so on back several steps. In our case, all of this was documented and recorded with the county (which is *not* the case with Zuckerberg's land -- so we have a much better position). Our problem is twofold: First, quit claim deeds are not warranty deeds, which means that while they're legal, they are only evidence of ownership, not a guarantee of ownership. Second, the legal description of the property boundaries was changed a few decades ago, and it's not completely clear if the new description actually matches the old one.

In our case, odds are very good that a title company can simply research the past sequence of titles, verify that everything is good, and issue us a warranty deed which guarantees our ownership. BUT there is a possibility that the research may find that there is additional cloudiness in the ownership, in which case we'll have to file an action to quiet title to flush out any other claims to the land and, if they can't be found within a certain time period (a year, I think?), to get a court ruling that we unambiguously hold title to the land.

This is a pretty common thing, and it's really not at all abusive.

Comment Re:Sad (Score 1) 270

3D shot/rendered correctly does add to the enjoyment of a film for many people.

Not me. I've seen a fair number of 3D movies in theaters, but I really prefer 2D. 3D doesn't add anything for me. I can appreciate the work and effort it takes to do it well, and to make it "natural", and on good equipment that outputs enough light it doesn't do any harm to the visuals... but it doesn't add to the story, and doesn't really improve the visuals. Beautiful cinematography is good either way, and nearly a century of practice has taught cinematographers (and photographers) how to depict great depth on a flat screen. Not that the human eye has any parallax-derived depth perception beyond a few dozen feet anyway.

So, what does 3D do? It requires me to wear glasses over my glasses, and it costs more. I suppose some people must like it or theaters wouldn't be able to charge a premium for it, but I pick the 2D showing unless there isn't one available at a convenient time.

Comment Re:Not hard to see why (Score 1) 270

No the ones with active glasses got MUCH better. mine has a 240 hz refresh and there is no ghosting and no perceivable dimming. The passive glasses suck because of the half-height resolution.

as far as not needing glasses... you do know how binocular vision works, right? The only FMV non-glasses technology that I'm aware of is on the 3DS, and that requires an eye tracking camera. There's no way a tech like that can work for multiple people.

Comment Re:3D was a thing? (Score 1) 270

I still wear glasses. You can only get the laser operation once, so I'm waiting until I need it.

Sorry it's so easy to dissuade you from using a technology. The glasses for my current TV are lighter than my prescription glasses.

Nothing is further from my mind when I'm watching something in my own home than "oh no. I look silly"

Comment Re:Massive failure from all involved (Score 5, Insightful) 126

The point of the argument is to challenge the implicit assumption that current neuroscience methods work as well as people think they do. If you just assume your research methods work, you are resting on blind faith in your methods. One step in showing the need to challenge those foundational assumptions is to use this example to //illustrate// how then can fail. Using microprocessors allows is the luxury of total knowledge as to what we are investigating, at the expense of being quite different to the brain. The quoted bit needs fixing:

"If we can't even properly reverse engineer an extremely simple deterministic computer chip using fault modeling, it's extremely unlikely that the same fault modelling will work reliably with something extremely complex like the brain."

It does not show whether or not 'fault modelling' works or not for the brain, but gives good justification for the claim that we cannot take the efficacy of 'fault modelling' for granted when studying the brain.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries

Working...