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


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 Nonsense about the defense budget (Score 1) 96

A lot of things in the defense budget are things that people rely on.

None that are things that have to be covered under the defense budget. Most of the defense budget is for personnel and for war fighting machines (purchase and operation).

Food subsidies at one point were covered through the defense budget for example

I'm not aware of this being true in my lifetime if ever. Citation please.

The GPS cluster maintenance and upgrades are paid out of the defense budget.

Doesn't mean it has to remain that way. Wouldn't be hard to put that into the budget for NOAA or NASA or NTSB or the Commerce Dept.

Originally the US interstate system was a defense project, though it's now funded through gasoline taxes.

The money for it never came out of the defense budget. The project did have defense implications but it ultimately was a civilian project that has been used almost entirely for civilian uses and funded by non-military dollars.

The defense budget covers a lot more than just war machines.

Let's not pretend that war machines and the people that operate them don't account for the vast majority of military spending.

After all, the Internet got its start as a DARPA project.

Which has fuck-all to do with the fact that our current military budget is bloated far beyond any reasonable defense needs.

Comment Re:Lost In Space (Score 1) 96

"We do have to get off the Earth as having all of us on the same planet pretty much ensures that we'll eventually all be wiped out by another meteor or similar extinction level event"

Why do Space Nutters always bring this up? Why is it a requirement that we don't go extinct? By the way, there is no way you can get an independent viable colony of humans anywhere but Earth. Read all the scifi you want, but it ain't gonna happen.

Comment The big waste is in the defense department (Score 1) 96

I would like to remind you that about a trillion dollars a year go toward "defense".

The actual number last year was around $600 billion but your point still stands. Coincidentally our federal deficit in 2016 was also right around $600 billion so we basically borrowed every penny we spent on the military last year. So thank your grandchildren for the debt they'll be paying off because we think it necessary to support a military that is grossly oversized but are unwilling to tax enough to pay for it.

If you want to talk about pork, you aren't talking about spending money on science, you're talking about defense spending.

Truer words have never been spoken. NASA is a rounding error compared to the wasteful spending in the defense department.

Comment Overhead includes engineering (Score 1) 96

This is the sort of idiotic criticism made by people with no understanding of accounting. Part of "overhead" is engineering and the engineering costs for designing a system like SLS are substantial. Since NASA is doing the engineering for SLS in house of course the overhead costs are going to be a higher percentage of their total. If they outsourced it, the overhead for engineering won't disappear - it will just go on the P&L for a different company. You could argue that a private sector company might be more efficient (not clear in this case) but they also would charge a mark up because they have to make a profit so you give some of that back. You can't just blindly compare overhead percentages without understanding what they are comprised of. Lower overhead does not necessarily equal a more efficient program, especially when it is in design phases. Just because the money didn't go to a private company doesn't necessarily mean it was money wasted.

You can argue whether SLS is pork or not and that's a separate issue. There is plenty to criticize about the program. But this argument about overhead is just someone who doesn't understand accounting naively comparing percentages they don't fully understand.

Comment Re:but you arent a traditional CA (Score 1) 249

The entire reason this is happening is because the browser vendors got a stick up their ass and required HTTP/2 connections to be run over TLS.

And by that, you mean the browser vendors realized that "unsafe by default" is a shitty choice for a widely used Internet standard.

For the "HTTPS-everywhere" has basically made website operators costs double if they want to jump on that bandwagon because the bandwidth costs explode when they can no longer be cached.

Totally worth the tradeoff for making strong encryption the expected default.

Comment Uh what? (Score 2) 32

"It's able to simultaneously evaluate multiple sections of the image -- a departure from previous systems that considered parts of an image one by one".

Wait, uh, this is cutting edge AI? What autonomous system can't evaluate multiple sections of an image

"convolutional neural network [which] picks up on specific features like shapes, symbols, and numbers in the image to decide which type of sign it most likely depicts." Uh, what? You mean the have an algorithm that can decide on types of street signs based on the image? Wow. Truly cutting edge. Autonomous cars are truly right around the corner.

Comment Some genres get over rated on RT (Score 1) 395

I'd say the usefulness of aggregators lies in the extremes - if the aggregate score is 80-90%, that's a remarkably wide range of people saying it was good, so clearly it has a broad based appeal and you'll likely enjoy it too.

True though there are some genres of movies on Rotten Tomatoes that get consistently over-rated compared with their relative merits. Pixar movies and disney-esque animation in general tend to get higher reviews than they probably deserve in many cases. For example Wall-E was a very solid movie and I enjoyed it but it got a 96% on Rotten Tomatoes. You'll never convince me that it was THAT good of a movie. I would have put it somewhere in the high 70s or low 80s. Maybe high 80s at best which is where the audience score was at 89% and even that is a bit high. Totally worth a theater ticket but not exactly best picture material. There are some that deserve ratings in the 90s but those should be much more rare than they are.

Fortunately I'm aware of this fact about RT so I can mentally adjust but it's kind of annoying and makes it harder to separate the good from the great and sometimes results in movies that should be skipped getting decent recommendations.

Similarly, if something is ranked at 10-20%, that's a remarkable consensus that it's bad.

Agreed. I've never seen a movie rated that low on Rotten Tomatoes that wasn't indeed a hot mess.

Comment Amazon isn't moving (Score 1) 76

But, if you force them to pay higher taxes, they'll move, and take the jobs/money with them.

Exactly how is Amazon going to move outside the US? Their business model is dependent on being able to deliver stuff quickly which means they aren't going anywhere and are going to be subject to US taxes whether they like it or not.

So they should pay higher taxes, but if we charge higher taxes, were screwed anyway.

They don't need to pay higher taxes, they just need to be prohibited from weaseling out of paying taxes they rightfully should have to pay. And no, just because they found some clever loophole doesn't make it ok.

Slashdot Top Deals

The amount of beauty required launch 1 ship = 1 Millihelen