Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:Yet another ignorant troll (Score 1) 196

This is not a comparison of apples to apples here. The constitution actually grants the STATES the right to pick the president by granting them a certain lot of electoral votes in proportion to their populations. How they decide to allocate them is up to the states. The 'popular vote' at a national level isn't actually a thing. It's only aggregated by statisticians, because really popular votes are only used by the states to help determine how they will allot their federally granted electoral votes, and really I do mean 'help determine' because not all of them electoral college members are required to vote with the popular vote, and nor have they ever been.

Comment Re:I guess /. still approves this crap (Score 1) 270

Cash is currently an option. It won't be forever. There are significant strides in Europe and India right now toward 'cashless' economies, because the government thinks it never misses out on taxes and the underground economy is supposedly all brought into the daylight -- but that just drives people into trading other things on the black market. It'll get worse over time and happen here too eventually. So you can either spend your TIME worrying about that, or you can just spend your MONEY, pay taxes, and grumble about the government. Unless you plan to overthrow a government or become a criminal, this is the wonderful future -- and it's YOUR wonderful, non-anonymous future. I don't like it either, but what can I do? Probably something illegal, but I'd rather just not bother.

Comment Re:A step back to see the big picture (Score 1) 197

I agree with this. I have been inspired by speakers at conferences. I have even learned a few things. And all of them were technology related. You just have to do your research up-front and know if you're in for a techie conference, or one that's only ostensibly techie, and is instead about tech culture. The cultural ones are nearly complete garbage, while the tech ones can be entirely inspiring.

Comment Re:Knowledge (Score 4, Interesting) 197

True, but you're speaking only from a hardware perspective. I have been to 'good conferences' where they have talks that spark me to research new ideas that eventually lead to productive lines of inquiry (RailsConf or in a previous life, PDC) and ones that are just advertisements or feature "Touchy Feely" talks about programmer sentiment and egos (RubyConf, total Yuck.) The ones that make me think, or research, are worth it. Even some of the keynotes (RailsConf 2016, keynote by Paul Lamere, from Spotify, fired my imagination and prompted me to take 6 months of courses on Big Data and Machine learning, which will eventually pay my employer dividends and then some,) by big names in their fields are worth the entire costs. It just means you need to know where to go, and what to look for, and what to avoid. Talks about diversity for the sake of coloration, or whatever, are little more than rants about unfairness, which leads to nothing company 'costs' if you buy in to them. But ones about how they take advantage of technologies (like one I saw [by a woman, speaking of diversity, which didn't even mention the fact that she was a woman -- BECAUSE THAT ISN'T THE IMPORTANT PART] about how Github used the Scientist gem to migrate their entire security structure without any downtime...) they can lead to local 'breakthroughs.' My advice is to stay away from 'touchy feely' conferences about developers and how they 'feel' at work, and to go to those that focus on the actual state of technology and what's out there and how to use it for your own personal, professional, and business's growth. Being around people who care about the same things, especially when those things are putting numbers on the board, is a great thing. NOT ALL CONFERENCES ARE CREATED EQUAL. That's just how it is. Do your research up front.

Comment Re:care less (Score 5, Informative) 191

You're actually not right. It can be AI without being sentient, and in this case, it is just that. It's a general purpose learning algorithm. Not a strategic poker playing algorithm. It doesn't need to be sentient to be intelligent. You're confusing General AI with Narrow AI. This is a Narrow AI, to be sure, but if you string enough Narrow AI's up together, they can eventually give the same appearance of a General AI. This is just one milestone along the way. In particular, it dethrones the idea that poker is the last bastion of human dominance in cognition. Obviously we'll have to find a new bastion, like the fact that we are, so far, the only General Intelligence thus far observed or produced.

Comment Re:Lack of other, different choices == force (Score 1) 436

If that was their best option, (per you, they have no other better options,) and you remove Uber from the equation, you've still done them a disservice by taking that OPPORTUNITY to work for Uber away. Afterall, that was their best option. You can't have it both ways. It's either their best opportunity or it isn't.

Comment Re:It's force nonetheless. (Score 1) 436

Force would be against their will. What people SAY they are willing to do and what they actually do are very different things. If they really didn't think they were getting a benefit equal to or greater than their involvement with Uber, they would quit. That's the difference between force and not force. Whether they like their other options or not, they have options. Anyone who stays working for uber, or any other company for that matter, CHOOSES to. That is the opposite of force.

Comment Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score 1) 557

Yeah, but if they did ratify it, then there would be no argument. I get what you're saying. And it's the same as what the founders said. That's why it is that way in the constitution. But, we have a way to change that, and I was just enumerating it. Not that it would necessarily pass, but just saying. At that point, "States" would become virtually irrelevant in the context of the presidential election. If that's what they want then fine, if not, also fine. Just saying.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton