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

 



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:Not entirely sure (Score 1) 124

There is some difference between "lock someone up for 2 years and let them meet the real gangsters to teach them how to be criminal" and "lock someone up and teach them how to become legal". There is much work to do to improve the current situation on this front. Its not made easier that the legal system punishes black people to an extraordinary extent. Also, there are other forms of punishment than just putting someone into a prison. Like fines for example.

Comment Re:Not entirely sure (Score 1) 124

Thats an argument along the lines of "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". Of course, the crime that's left is in the blind spots, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't successful.

That being said, I don't suggest that the entire US should be carpet surveilled with cameras like the british islands are. Just apply it to some few select crime hot spots.

Comment Re:Not entirely sure (Score 1) 124

To be honest, if I'm looking at all the people who use the Chrome browser, who use Windows 10, who use smartphones, and who all have opted into this control and surveillance, I think that putting cameras in places with rampant crime and abuse is a good way to stop it. However, if you only put cameras to the places of the city where crime is most present, it will just simply move. Therefore its a good idea to place cameras into every part of the city. If this is only done in cities where crime is very present, then its a good move!

Also, these cameras can't be turned off by police officials as easily as body cameras can, so I think its more likely to see better proof for police brutality and to pick out the bad apples.

Obviously, you need to watch out that these data don't get into wrong hands and maybe get used for extortion.

Comment Re:I'm not surprised. (Score 1) 904

clear sexual advances like these without invitation are a clear case of sexual harassment.

So you want to ban any kind of sexual advances? I mean, do you want that people first ask before they ask about starting a relationship? I mean, that person didn't touch her, or even intimidated her or something.

The only real problem here was that it was a superior asking a subordinate. THAT is bad behavior, as there is always a direct power relation.

The second problem obviously was that it wasn't his first encounter like that, but one does have to ask whether his other encounters were with his subordinates as well, or whether it was simply with other coworkers (which is okay).

Comment Re:I'm not surprised. (Score 3, Interesting) 904

I think the main problem here is that the superior propositioned the subordinate. This is problematic, as when she refuses, which she did, she was still dependent on him, and it was easy for him to punish her for her refusal. Of course, he still could put care on treating her the same, but obviously this is something very hard to prove, and therefore the best approach would be to ban this behavior.

Generally though, assuming or expecting that every employee lives in a happy relationship and doesn't want any new ones is just not realistic. Employees will seek relationships and generally this doesn't cause any harm to anybody, just when the power relations are so direct like with direct superior and subordinate its a problem.

Comment Re:Extend technology to eliminate CEOs (Score 2) 47

CEOs aren't really overpaid. The amount they get paid seems large compared to normal employees, but it still pales in comparison to the money the actual owners make on it. I mean the CEO is a hired manager to be a replacement for the leadership of the owner(s) (for convenience reasons and because possibly the ownership is shared between multiple parties, some of whom may not possess the skills to lead the company). As such, the CEO needs many of the skills the founders possessed, and therefore its justified to set the salary closer to that amount. Especially, one has always to consider what happens if the CEO instead of leading the company starts their own. So unless you dislike the very foundations of how capitalism works, which I hope you do not, CEOs are paid fairly.

Comment Re:A few very general, some very specific (publici (Score 1) 104

From google's reply:

This case concerns three patents that seek to protect computers "from malicious software", or malware. According to the patent's common specification, malware programs often succeded in infecting computers because the computers' "resources" were "shared by programs simultaneously, giving a malware program a conduit to access and corrupt other programs.". [...] The proposed solution was to eliminate that conduit by separating the computer's memory into distinct areas, such that a malicious program could not access or infect other programs. [...]

Because that simple concept had long been known, respondents secured allowance of their claims only by limiting their scope. Among other things, the patent claims were limited to segregating components of a computer's hardware (as opposed to software). The computer's key system files would operate on a processor with access to one memory region, while any network-interface software would operate on a second processor with access only to a second memory region. Those claims issued as US patent No 7,484,247. [...]

After failing to license or sell that patented invention, [...] respondents surrendered the original patent in 2010 and filed reissue applications with different claims. [...]

Armed with publicly available information about Google's Chrome web browser [...], the applicants drafted claims geared toward browsers. Instead of separating hardware components, the proposed claims used discrete software processes. The computer would execute trusted processes in the main memory area, while "isolating" potentially dangerous processes "from the main computer system" in a second area. The proposed claims referred to the trusted process and the potentially dangerous process as the first and second "browser process[es]". [...]

The examiner rejected the claims because they were not new.

Then it continues that some earlier patent "Narin" already had such a concept, and apparently the patent got issued anyway because it was limited to "web browser process" and not "browsing program", as that earlier patent.

Whether to abolish software patents or not (I think they should), this is clearly an abuse of the system.

Its also shocking that simple obvious ideas like the concept to confine processes into a sandbox for security purposes can be patented when you just make your claims to a specific enough subset.

Comment Re:Solve for Greed first. (Score 2) 251

Yeah, its a gigantic social problem coming ahead. Capitalism has let the human greed work for it, but if humans don't have to work, only the dividing parts of greed will remain.

Even further, it will be interesting whether and how the new capabilities given by AI will help the enemies of free democratic systems.

I don't think humans as such will become irrelevant. Unless some human programs an AI to defy the orders of humans there won't be any "takeover by AI" I think, so there will be always humans at the top. The question is about the remaining 99.99% of humanity.

We really need to figure out how such a society could look like and we need to figure it out fast, because technology doesn't wait.

Comment Re:decreasing population (Score 1) 318

I rather live in a world where there are maybe 2-5 billion people and everyone can live a great life than in one where there are 100 billion and everyone lives in poverty, everyone must be a vegetarian, and resources like places to live or pieces of untouched nature are rare.

With 10 billion people we will have a hard time to stop climate change or resource exploiting, especially if we want to treat most of them like humans and give them the opportunity to live a decent life.

Comment This is bullshit (Score 2) 309

If you allow every function to be an "operator", the solution is pretty trivial, as to construct any number p you could just simply take the constant function with 4 input parameters that has value p. If you allow only a finite set of "operators" you won't be able to construct any real from it with only finitely many applications of your operators, as there are unaccountable many reals.

If you restrict yourself to rationals you can get everywhere by just writing / somewhere between the four's and applying increment/decrement on both sides often enough.

Slashdot Top Deals

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side. - Han Solo

Working...