Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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: Selective or Universal, Multiple Consensus (Score 1) 42

One thing these customers want .. is to gain all the auditability of a blockchain (the chain itself is impervious to manipulation) without their competitors seeing what they do. If user "A" has a transaction pending with user "B", "A" does not want competitor "C" to know about it and try to swoop in somehow. They want their purchase to provide real market advantage with a level of surprise, instead of having all their competitors roll out the same functionality two months later. And thus, limit their transaction chains to approved people only (e.g., "A", "B", and the bank(s) or escrow managers).

Comment Re:Why is Amazon/Alexa even saving recordings? (Score 1) 117

From a debugging perspective, it's probably much easier to unit test and fine-tune the algorithms based on the raw speech as then at least the human developer can listen to the audio and compare it to the produced output.

And, of course, in my experience, once such debug capabilities are turned on, there's no impetus later in the cycle to turn them off. I'm just as guilty in that regard as anyone else I know, sometimes probably worse as I end up turning on even more debug information later in the cycle than we had at the beginning.

Comment Re:so... (Score 2) 600

I don't know if it's a general rule for everyone, but I got called racist for opposing Obama's socialist tendencies in 2008 before he even became president, and was still campaigning. I got it regularly, and I don't care about the colour of his skin (any more than I care about the orange-tinge of Trump's skin).

I saw it so often that I can't believe anyone couldn't see it. In fact, if anything, it's that sort of knee-jerk name-calling of anyone who didn't fully embrace the Obama/Clinton progressive line that most likely cost HRC the election. Sure, people on the coasts didn't mind because they were intelligent enough and progressive enough to vote for Obama purely on the colour of his skin, or Clinton on the gender she identifies as, and were sorry for all their unearned privilege. But the people in the flyover states, even ones that traditionally have been Democrat strongholds, have apparently tired of this "hyperbole and untrue" experience. Except it's neither hyperbole nor untrue.

Personally, I'd rather Trump wasn't president. I suspect many, if not most, people who voted for Trump also would rather he wasn't president. However, when his opponent drops into name calling ("deplorables" likely did as much as anything to sink Clinton's campaign), most didn't see much choice.

I'm just hoping he's a one-term president at this point. But if the Democrats continue to blame everyone but themselves for their loss, I'm not holding my breath.

Comment Re:Proper Authorities (Score 1) 1321

In order to take it to court, I imagine one must have standing to sue. A single elector may have trouble proving standing, as their one vote, by itself, is unlikely to tilt the election. However, there's no disputing (I think) that Clinton would suffer irreparable harm, assuming the results are tampered. She has standing. The academics do not.

To disclaim bias, I say this happy that Clinton did not win. (But not happy that Trump won... sigh) As I've said before, I'd rather honesty and transparency than fraud, regardless of what that brings to light. If Clinton should have been the legal winner of those college votes, then she should have them, and should sue to get that done. Though I can understand a reluctance - undermining the fiction of votes counting also undermines the validity of future Democrat presidents, not just the current Republican president-elect, and her chances of winning are likely quite low. There's little upside to the challenge for her, and great downside for her party.

Comment Yes. (Score 3, Insightful) 361

As long as what they report on is true and unbiased, yes. I don't care if it's on the HRC campaign or the Trump campaign, as long as it is objectively true. I would rather the politicians were honest and transparent, and if it takes a foreign power to force it, I have a hard time complaining.

Leave the pontificating to the pundits. Journalists should merely report the truth.

And, no, I don't care for Hillary "embarrassing" herself. That may be truthful, but it's not any more germane to the discussion than Trump embarrassing himself (even though that gets reported on as well on a regular basis - we don't need Russian interference to see it). The juicy bits, such as it were, would be any case of unethical and/or illegal behaviour. I haven't really followed the leaks, so I don't know if there is any such bits in there. Ideally, all candidates would behave in perfectly ethical manners, but few do. I doubt HRC or Trump do, and that's what should be reported on.

The standard should be "truth" and not "where it comes from." We reserve that standard for the justice system where unethical police officers could get away with illegal behaviour to make a case without those limits.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The number of Unix installations has grown to 10, with more expected." -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972

Working...