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


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 Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 1) 120

You are an idiot. They didn't say all cancer research articles were suspect, just a minute fraction of the total number published. And no one brought up climate research except you. But as an AC, you were just yanking people's chains without having the guts to say who you are. Pitiful. Log in next time, and try and say something intelligent, if that is possible.

Comment Re:Relevance (Score 1) 57

So what is Musk going to do with his rockets? Send rich people into orbit for a hefty price tag so he can make even more money? Wow, now I'm sold on rich people doing big things. How about maybe he spend his money to cure cancer, and give the treatments away once they are available? Oh, that wouldn't make any money. OK, so he can sell his cancer cure to very rich people who can afford it. Great. Now I'm really sold on rich people doing big things.

Look, rich people are rich because of a broken, oligarchy system that is rigged in their favor, and they don't give a shit about regular people. Their behavior proves that to be true. A true philanthropist would spend their money for the betterment of everyone, not just to make more money.

Comment Re:Relevance (Score 1) 57

Oh sure, rich people are going to save the world. Ayn Rand would love your world view. If a rich person can't do it, it can't be done, right? I'm sure they will put millions of dollars into it before they realize that it won't work. But why not? I saw it in a movie once! And next, Facebook will invent warp drive and teleportation. You know, because they are rich!

I've read some of the primary literature on doing this in people who are disabled. It is not going to be practical for regular use, and will never be faster or nearly as accurate as typing. But who knows what they may come up with in the process of trying; a cozy head warmer maybe. Or an IoT pizza ordering device for your head.

Comment Re:Becaue you aren't offering to do the work. (Score 4, Insightful) 366

Now most "improvements" to software are marketing crap. Added features are useless for most people, but sound good in advertising, or may appeal to people superficially. I've noticed that in many cases real functionality is replaced with junk (Windows 10 vs Windows 7 comes to mind). So when seasoned software users don't fawn all over new software "features" it may be more about experience than stubborn resistance from uppity users.

Comment Re:Relevance (Score 2) 57

Considering how much people need to correct what speech recognition software does with your spoken words, this isn't going to work. The electrical signals that get through the skull are weak and noisy. Each person is going to have different brain patterns. But it makes for a great press release and gets people talking nonsense about it.

Comment Re:So drone complaints are up (Score 1) 42

You don't think that when everyone is flying drones around the neighbor's house and Amazon et al. are delivering by drone that it isn't going to be really obnoxious? I realize that when there are only a few here and there it is OK, but what about when there are tens of millions, or hundreds of millions? Your obnoxious neighbor is going to have lots of fun spying on you.

You don't think there is any reason why some people might start to think of them as a nuisance? I see a large potential for lawsuits, mass irritation and then the new laws will come. It seems inevitable as the price comes down on drones and more people buy them. Not everyone has the self control to use them judiciously.

Comment Re:"We're" loosing it? (Score 1) 444

I never go to the NYT anymore, they seem like a CIA outlet. I go to the Guardian, but rarely read the main articles because they are so biased in favor of the current power structure. The best news in the US now is from Democracy Now.

As long as the news is coming from giant corporations, it is never going to be anything other than "perception management".

Comment Re:Republicans (Score 1) 547

OK, now I know you are kidding. Or are you saying that the government and corporations are two parts of the same entity? When one part goes into debt and the other gets a huge profit, that overall the conglomerate is in debt; ergo, the profiteering defense contractor that made a huge profit was actually in debt because the government borrowed money to pay them. I like your thinking, Impressively illogical.

Comment Re:"We're" loosing it? (Score 1) 444

It is very easy for journalists to contradict those in power if they choose to. They claim that the Trump administration is misleading people virtually daily. I am not misusing the term fake news, most of the mainstream media are. To them fake news is anything that contradicts their current Washington-speak. Russia hacked the election is the current fake news from the mainstream media. No evidence is provided. Probably because they got caught faking things like the forged documents on yellow cake from Nigeria, and the mobile bio weapons labs that were in fact weather balloon stations. So now the media are reluctant to put out fake evidence that might come back later and undermine their credibility further. Now allegations fly with no evidence given. If that isn't fake news, then I just don't know what could possibly be.

Giant corporations own all of the mainstream media, and they have many reasons to distort the news and engage in "perception management".

Comment Re:"We're" loosing it? (Score 3, Interesting) 444

It really doesn't matter the source of the false information, it is that it is false. The NYT knew that Iraq was not preparing to attack the US, but it was good for access journalism, and good for their profits. Indeed, when the source of the fake news if from "the paper of record" the malfeasance is even more severe. Journalism is not just writing down what the WH tells you to. Iraq's weapons programs had been systematically dismantled with UN oversight over the previous decade, and the NYT knew that. It was fake news.

Comment Re:"We're" loosing it? (Score 3, Informative) 444

Everyone knew that Iraq was not about to attack the US. It was fake, and even Colin Powell admits his testimony at the UN was bunk. Real journalists check their facts, they don't just report what they are told by officials. The NYT was intentionally misleading the public. That is the definition of fake news.

Comment Re:"We're" loosing it? (Score 4, Insightful) 444

The NYT is famous for its WMD in Iraq, Saddam is going to attack the US fake news. Fox is packed with fake news. Face it, ever since the the news media turned to click bait journalism (infotainment), the news from the left, right and center is likely to have many fake components, salted with a dash of truth to make it more palatable. The Russians did it (meaning everything bad that ever happens) is the latest in click-bait journalism. Time to boycott the mainstream (fake) press.

Slashdot Top Deals

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer