Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Recorded history (Score 1) 412

The issue is timescale. When temps rise so quickly that every month in a consecutive string of 14 breaks a 120 year old record for the hottest month, that's so unlikely as to be impossible to have happened by chance, by any statistical standard. Given the rarity of consecutive hot months in the known past, this is evidence of rapid change in climate on a global level.

There are no plausible natural mechanisms that could explain such a quick rise in temps, or we'd have seen evidence of comparable runs of heat in the past, like an occasional greatly enlarged growth ring arising in trees around the world. But we don't see this.

Flipping a 120 sided coin 14 times and getting 120 every single time is as clear a message we're going to get. A global warming trend *is* underway.

Comment Older folks knew harder times (Score 1) 219

After you've worked with old slow quirky bad tech like MSDOS or AT&T's Merlin phones, you know you can handle anything. Fact is, most of today's apps and tech services are freemium, so any company with a novel product that has to grab mindshare by virtue of its popular appeal knows they can't ship crap like what passed for software, O/S, or hardware back in the 1980â(TM)s. The youngsters have been spoiled, and it's only in the workplace where employers buy trash tools from the lowest bidder that staff must learn to make the best with busted tools (like SAP or Webex or Microsoft's webapps).

Comment Mindlessly unenforceable (Score 3, Insightful) 282

This law would require dispensations for credit cards, banks, point of sale software, (the government itself), and many more infrastructural e-orgs that cannot function without encryption.

It would also require makers of cell phones that encrypt, Facebook (soon), and increasinly many e-firms to recognize any device/account as being ENGLISH so that it can selectively stomp all over those peoples' freedoms.

It will also generate an *ungodfy* large amount of data that will swamp the GCHQ's resources and waste their time sifting through zottabytes of drivel, since BAD GUYS DON"T CHAT ON THE PHONE.

This policy is so halfass and dumbass that it'll be impossible to enforce.

Comment Re:Devil's Advocate? Nah. (Score 2) 595

Wait. Are you saying Apple is the Devil, if you're the devil's advocate?

Then allow me to be the devil's prosecutor:

1) All wire cables need shielding. You're assuming a digital signal will fail less often than analog due to strong RF interference. But since digital cables use wires too, they too will fail if the field is intense enough, probably at about the same point as analog does (just as digital TV tuners do). And I've *never* experienced interference from my analog cables.

2) You bought cables with crap connectors. Any decent analog cable has connectors that don't crackle or quit when the line is bent. (BTW, all earbuds are fine examples of such crap.)

3) Phones come with 1 or 2 rings, usually 2. If this leaves in deeply dismayed and contemplating suicide, switch to bluetooth now. Problem solved.

4) What's the point of encryption on headphones? The audio bleeding through your earpads is audible to anyone within 5 feet anyway. If this made sense, it'd be available via bluetooth now.

5) Digital connectors won't bypass the internal DAC. The market for external mobile DACs is so small, mobile DACs will remain internal and in-line... inescapably, alas.

6) Again, nobody wants an ultra thin phone, except Apple -- so they can sell more replacement phones after you break yours for the fourth time in a month.

And remember, a digital output signal will require active headphones with batteries to drive an external amp and noise cancelling DSP. Thus *all* mobile phones just got a lot more fragile and expensive, in ways that do NOT serve anyone but Wall Street analysts. It's they who are afraid that too small an excess of useless features will cause Apple's stock valuation to slip, thereby driving the entire board to jerk their knees in perfect synchrony with "Yankee Doodle Dandy" while waving incense and sprinkling rose water.

Comment Rosie Jetson? Let's get real. (Score 4, Insightful) 64

What chores will Rosie do? Cooking? No, way too complex for decades yet: gathering foods from fridge and pantry, opening a variety of containers, exracting indredients of many shapes and consistencies in proper amounts (and avoiding those that are spoiled), prepping each (peeling, chopping, grating, sauteeing), and synchronized cooking before dishing up. All this without burning down the house or spilling and then having to clean up the messes. Not to mention the cleaning up of utensils and pans thereafter.

Cleaning? Not even. Vacuuming, dusting, tidying, navigating a dynamic ever changing floorplan and tabletops, without toppling and destroying all those expensive knick-knacks or running over the cat, and of course, not making an ever greater mess.

Washing the dog? Nursing the baby? Cleaning the windows? Mopping the floors? Beating the rugs? Washing the car? Mowing the yard? Clearing the gutters? Weeding the garden? Trimming the hedge? Edging the sidewalk? Taking the dog for a walk? Taking out the garbage? Yeahhhh...

Which subset of these chores does OpenAI choose for their Rosie Jetson? 'Cause she can't do them all. And how many Rosies can you sell if she costs more than a Segway but only can load the dishwasher and fetch beer from the fridge?

Reality check: an affordable domestic robot that's actually useful is hellaciously ambitious, especially when no robot on earth can do any of these things yet, not at any price.

Comment Charge the robot's developer with assault (Score 1) 186

This is no different than hiring a hitman. If the hit occurs or not, you and s/he are equally liable. If the robot succeeds or not, the moment it's powered up in the presence of other people, its programmer is guilty of assault.

That's the right legal precedent to set, regardless of what this attention-seeker intended.

Comment Quit whingeing. Join github. (Score 5, Interesting) 365

If you want a professional presence that makes a difference, get active on github and post examples of your work: products, projects, utilities, documents, etc. Contribute to an open project there, even if it's just to clean up documentation (or add docs or howtos).

Constructive examples of your work will say more about you to prospective employers than a LinkedIn e-resume ever could.

Comment Great topic. Poor execution. (Score 2) 247

Government and the technical augmentation or automation thereof is a fascinating source of ideas and issues, philosophical and economic. But the OP's choice of a term like "Big Government" seeks to attract only lightweight libertarians and nattering neocons who are blissfully transfixed by antiseptic fantasies like meritocracy and Big Bad Bureaucracy.

Why discuss flamebait? Let's ask a better question.

Can AI/tech improve or replace government? Can it help us to focus better on issues rather than politics? Might tech help us to make concrete measurable progress toward achieving specific goals, improve administative efficiency, and minimize the role of gov't in our lives? Yes, I'm convinced that it can, and I'd love to discuss it. But the OP's simplistic article won't inspire that level of discourse here and now.

For a better start on this topic, I recommend:

"Automating Easy Government Solutions with Machine Learning"

"Why Government Managers Need to Know About Machine Learning"

"How can government make the most of machine learning systems and avoid the pitfalls?"

"White House to probe role of AI in government"

Comment Re:Political parties are private institutions (Score 2) 338

The parties are not actually private, they're corporations. Worse, R and D also have become monopolies. (OK, oligopolies, to please the hairsplitters). Because they now exclusively control admission to US politics, no US candidate for high office can hope to compete without A) being a member, or B) having a huge private war chest (hundreds of millions) or C) direct access to major media -- all of which Trump has, two of which Perot had, none of which Anderson had. Even then, Trump has elected to check all three of these boxes knowing how stacked the deck is against him otherwise.

The political parties are guaranteed no special protections under the Constitution, other than those of the First Amendment. Today, as de facto gatekeepers to government office, we very badly need to redefine the role of political parties, something that starts and ends with their money.

It's easy enough to fix: demand a constitutional amendment requiring that all monies spent in campaigns by and for *specific* political candidates must arise from a limited pool of public money. (This should not run afoul of the First Amendment, since candidates are not 'speech'.) All other monies routed to or spent by candidates or elected officials shall be considered bribes (including their own money).

All other developed countries have this law or something very like it. Until America catches up with the times, our public policy will continue to be sold to the highest bidder... Wall Street and giant corporations.

Comment This first product with a rating of zero stars (Score 1) 97

How long will Comcast be willing to suffer the terrible ratings that Amazon customers will inevitably give to Xfinity signup? Hundreds of thousands of one star ratings and incendiary customer complaints?

That wealth of ill will will invite coordinated interstate legal action, like a cross country class action lawsuit. Then Comcast will quickly take action to suppress this, probably by withdrawing the service from Amazon entirely, or by reissuing the product under an oft-changing banner, in order to erase all those old nastygrams.

Comment Why not learn directly from 3D OpenGL models? (Score 1) 45

To generate 3D video, you must create 3D models of objects and then render them using OpenGL (or its ilk). Why go to the trouble of rendering objects and then learning from pretty pictures, when you can learn directly from those same 3D models? Why not put your effort into building better models and learning from them directly?

Or, if this project is prologue to having a mobile robot wander through a physical space in order to learn the objects in that space, why not just get a mobile robot and write code for it instead? Then your work is useful right away. Otherwise you're going to have to add many real-world constraints later (like specular reflection, sunshine in your eyes, judder, fog, occusion, uneven ground, etc, etc).

Comment Part of a bigger problem: poor abstract reasoning (Score 1) 908

I agree with Hacker that 1) algebra II and trig are not often used by most adults, 2) statistics and probability would be more useful skills, and 3) a course in 'mathematical reasoning' would be much more useful to 85% of srtudents than the HS math that's taught now.

But I think poor pure math skills in America is the tip of a much bigger problem, which is only going to get worse as life on Earth becomes increasingly virtual and computer based. It seems Americans are losing their ability to think and reason abstractly. And lowering the bar for math skills isn't going to fix that.

Math and logic are the principal tools to think abstractly. And Americans increasingly suck at it. This is very bad, since everything you do on a computer is essentially abstract. At best, clicking a mouse on a button is a surrogate for some physical activity (meeting socially, traveling by map, turning a knob, etc). But increasingly, computers require us to think abstractly about how stuff works and how it *might* work. A GUI desktop is an analog for a real desktop. The thought process required for any physical action must change when the act is done virtually. If this virtual analog is unintuitive, then the user must think abstractly about how they *might* solve the problem, given the limits of the virtual world of Windows/OSX. In a reality like ours is becoming -- a fusion of virtual+physical reality -- if you can't back up a step and think abstractly, you're dead.

Comment Can you learn stats w/o knowing polynomials? (Score 1) 908

No, you must take algebra before you take statistics or probability. If you didn't, the teacher would be able to cover only the most rudimentary concepts in stats or prob.

Without knowing polynomials, how would you deal with an unknown standard deviation when the known variance is not a simple square? You're stuck. And without knowing logarithms, how do you understand a logarithmic axis on a plot? Or a log likelihood? How would you appreciate that every kind of probability distribution is based on a formula that's expressible only using exponents AND polynomials.

Learning statistics and probability without algebra II would dumb them down so much that they'd lose their mathematical roots. They'd become merely conceptual... sterile disembodied factoids to be memorized en masse and regurgitatied by rote... never usable and soon forgotten.

Slashdot Top Deals