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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 316

Yep, basically the only way I can see it working would be with automated group sharding. Probably not even AI needed, just a system that learn your preferences based on others who behave similar with blocking to you and would allow social predictive blocking.

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 316

It's barely profitable and the user base has stagnated. Essentially, it's just 'still around' rather than a big thing. And worse, it doesn't seem to have any idea about how to resolve the issues.

Frankly, I don't think it can and remain 'twitter'. I don't think the particular communication pattern that twitter supports is sustainable; it's essentially built to guarantee a devolution of conversation into the worst human communication forms, flamewars, bullying, etc.

Comment Re:You forget that (Score 1) 294

I think the caring (more) for women is at least partially biologically hardwired, but of course, the advantage of being human is that we don't have to obey our hard wiring when it conflicts with a reasoned ethical position.

Treating men and women when they're on the down and out could happen if we applied ourselves. But currently, as a society, we're more concerned with treating men and women equally in boardrooms, and as there are fewer women on the bottom, well... it's not an area I see getting a high priority in the near future.

Comment Re:You forget that (Score 1) 294

Oh, I understand it very well, and was active in a rare non-judgemental forum for a long time. The actual act itself is often triggered due to short term events, but people contemplating suicide have often lived with depression a long time, and among them, interest in methods is so high that most 'help' forums will outright ban any discussion of suicide or methods and/or threaten to call police on anyone discussing it. Most will have had suicidal thoughts for months or years, and looking at how to do it is a normal component of that. Many will prepare for and have a method that is at least realizable within a few days to a week.

Most are smart enough not to actually admit to it to healthcare or family, as nothing good for them, personally, will come from that, so I think it looks a lot more sudden and unresearched in many cases than it actually is.

I doubt masculinity has much to do with it; the human body is simply quite durable. If you want to be certain, it all comes down to one thing; destroying the brain, physically or by oxygen starvation. Most effective ways to do that are by necessity quite violent, and the ones that aren't are technically complicated or highly uncertain. As both men and women contemplating suicide will find that out quite quickly, the disparity must be explained by something else. And like I said, personally I think it's largely due to men being quite sure that they're not going to get any long term help, so they'd better make sure they're off permanently.

Comment Re:You forget that (Score 4, Interesting) 294

"Which is not to say I'm unsympathetic, but the issue isn't the disparity, it's the things that drive people to suicide."

That's saying that women are incompetent at suicide. It's not like it's a big secret that pills and cutting aren't very likely to actually kill you and getting information of easily accessible methods that will actually get the job done isn't more than a search away (automotive assisted decapitation ftw!). Being capable of researching options isn't a gendered thing (or we should re-evaluate a lot of things).

I suspect the reality is that the disparity is largely based on the rational projections of future life chances. There's a large difference in the likely development of a life for those who aren't completely capable of dealing with it for men and women. Women make an ultimately rational choice to keep chances high to get help, because they have a significant chance of actually getting help, and even women who can never support themselves will often be able to life a somewhat decent life, get support from parents, attract a mate, etc. While men... well, a failed suicide attempt isn't exactly CV improving material.

So, whether a fully conscious choice or not, the disparity is sociologically and probably biologically rational. Men have better reasons to be serious about it if they decide to check out.

And I really don't see any tendencies that it will change. Rather, I think our care for women is biologically hardwired, and the way society is progressing for the moment, being unsympathetic to men is more popular than ever. I mean, fuck, look at something like BLM; even if, in reality, the black men are mainly getting shot due to being male rather than being black, would you try launching a 'mens lives matter' movement? I think not.

Comment Re:Who Cares? (Score 1) 308

Then again, there are others who regard polite disagreement as disrespect. I have friends, or, well, 'friends' who I don't discuss politics with as they just can't handle it. I still sometimes listen to their rants, as I personally find all opinions interesting, but they're not likely to convince me of anything. Their arguments are simply pathetically blunt and filled with errors as they never engage in real debate, but rather hang around in an echo chamber.

Comment Re:Other things we don't know (Score 2) 142

Of course, if the system actually uses a resolution that accurate, it's quite likely you won't even be your own doppelganger. Retaining water would be enough to throw it off.

I'd wager that evolution and neural net learning has struck a pretty optimal balance between false positives and false negatives for this in the human brain.

Oh, and the human system definitely uses measures the researchers didn't take in this study; ever failed to recognize someone because they're not in the same context you usually see them? Heck, I once spent 2 hours on a train talking to someone I thought I sort of recognized. A day later I realized I'd been talking to a (former) CEO of one of the biggest companies in the country, but of course, I wasn't exactly used to seeing him outside TV or newspapers. Ah, well, at least he got an early insight into free software.

Comment Re:As it's been said... (Score 4, Insightful) 621

The commission is the only entity that can propose legislation. Usually, you do elect the people who can propose legislation.

The power of the actual elected body, the European Parliament, is still quite limited. They don't even have enough power to prevent their forced relocation from Brussles to Strassbourgh every month, rather being caught in a perpetual schoolyard bully 'stop hitting yourself' moment. They've managed to block legislation, what, once in history?

There are good and bad things about the EU, but democratic credibility isn't one of the good ones.

Comment Re:This is BS (Score 1) 440

Yeah, I think it's quite common in most places for the same reasons you mention. And a human or an autonomous car with more situational awareness can deal with those situations by being extra alert and careful and keeping a pre-planned problem resolution at hand (ie, ensuring there's space behind/at the side to emergency break while passing).

But the Tesla just drives right into it, keeps a speed that might as well have been planned to make it invisible to the truck, while closing the distance to the car in front in a place where the road layout makes it look like it's intentionally cutting people from the merging road off from being able to take the exit. It's really bad behaviour.

I can't even say that it's good that it's collision avoidance managed to avoid the collision, because it that's how it works, there's a high chance that people will start to figure 'oh, look, I'm being cut off by a Tesla being a dick. No problem, it's fast enough to deal with me forcing myself into its lane.'.

Comment Re:This is BS (Score 1) 440

In the near miss video the Tesla is engaged in behaviour that is so dangerous that it's illegal in many countries, as it's overtaking the truck in the outside lane. The legality might be a bit mitigated due to what seems to be a road merge right before, so the lane speeds might not have gotten sorted out, but considering the off-ramp or whatever it is that the truck is heading for, it's a traffic situation where exactly what happened is highly likely to happen. A situation where most human drivers would be very, very careful about exactly what that truck was doing if they intended to pass it. And where any real autonomous car should absolutely not be moving faster than the cars in the lanes to the left at anywhere near highway speeds.

Comment Re:Negotiating (Score 1) 455

Reading the actual article (sorry...) the actual reason is that 'computer programmer' in this case means (more or less) 'mainframe programmer'.

The study also includes the titles we would normally be including in 'computer programmer', and they have slightly different statistics...:
Software Engineer – $0.94
Mobile Developer – $0.97

Comment Re:What if it had supported "social justice"? (Score 4, Interesting) 572

Well, it's hardly surprising if the bot used Twitter to build its responses, Twitter seems to excel in dragging it's users mental capacity down into the gutters. Exposing it to Tumblr would probably have resulted in something more stereotypically 'teen girl', and putting it in a class on critical theory and you'd get a random generator of meaningless words.

Neo-Nazi Sex Robot has a better sales potential than windows mobile though, maybe Microsoft should see if it can aquire Boston Dynamics from Google and combine these revolutionary technologies into a truly spectacular future for humankind.

Comment Re:This guy over here.... (Score 1) 254

Are they actually serious? I assumed this was the way that it was always done; for as long as I can remember it's always been pointed out that self-destruct traps are essentially pointless as no serious attacker would be so grossly incompetent that they'd try to break into the original.

For things like rubber hose protection you'd use plausible deniability material instead where the 'wrong' password reveals something somewhat embarrassing but fairly innocent, so they basically can't tell if there's anything more available. Destroying the contents instead merely means you gave them the wrong code and they know there's a right one and they still have the next copy and can beat you with the rubber hose until you give them one that unlocks it.

If the FBI is actually working with the original there needs to be some serious firing done...

Slashdot Top Deals

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay

Working...