Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:Who cares about the drivers, (Score 1) 139

Also some European countries have large population groups that have different cultures and languages. Take a country like Belgium where there are several different groups all within the same country. The northern parts which are Dutch and Flemish culture largely speak Dutch and the southern part of the country in the Wallonian region speak French (or a dialect of it) and then there's a small region on the Eastern part of the country where German is spoken.

Comment Re:Narrative Pushing Will Ruin It (Score 4, Interesting) 185

Why would you want to post on such a site to begin with though? Conceivably some antisemitic website would require you to indicate that you believe Jews are the source of all evil or something like that. You can't have a reasonable debate in such a place to begin with and I expect that only people who would want to post there are already true believers.

As with any tool, it can be used responsibly and have good outcomes or be used for terrible purposes by immoral people. You also forget that for the website to ask a question and assign it a correct answer is a tactic endorsement that they believe it is the truth. A news site could run a story about political candidate X talking about the wage gap, but that's just reporting on something that happened, having a question where the correct answer is "the wage gap is real" on the other hand goes beyond just reporting. Any news site that used questions so irresponsibly would just hang itself.

Comment Re:Perhaps a better method... (Score 5, Interesting) 1001

If you're basing hiring on whether or not someone gets the correct answer to a statistics problem, you're probably hiring wrong. Instead, if you're using it to evaluate how a person approaches solving a problem, what steps they take, how they go about verifying if their solution is correct, what questions they ask about the problem, etc. then the problem itself really doesn't matter. In fact, it would be better to give them something impossible just so you get the added kicker of seeing how they react to that because management will sure as shit ask for impossible things from time to time.

Hell, you could even give them a computer to see how they search for information. If I'm really stuck on something, after five minutes I start searching online as a rule because occasionally the solution requires some obscure piece of information only found in the errata or there's a bug that hasn't been patched yet and there's no point banging my head against the wall if someone else has already done that. Someone who has good Google-fu and can quickly find the information they need may well be more valuable than someone who could eventually work through the problem on their own, but only after spending 3 hours on what could have been solved in 3 seconds.

I'd be a little leery of someone who always needs friends, because if they aren't available they might make new friends at work and then you've got someone who's eating up other developers time and hurting their productivity. However, interview processes shouldn't be about knowing answers to esoteric or eclectic problems, but rather making sure the individual has a healthy approach to solving problems, because that's what you're paying them to do. If the code is really boiler plate, you can probably just get a machine to generate it.

Comment Re:kill the salt, kill the sugar (Score 5, Interesting) 244

Actually salt doesn't contribute to high blood pressure: This is something that's been shown multiple times in research for a quite a while, but can't seem to overcome this myth that's been propagated for years that it's become one of those things that everyone just "knows" and no one questions or thinks about.

Sure, salt can make your blood pressure go up, but it would be weird if it didn't. Increase the amount of sodium intake and some of that is absorbed by you cells which then take on more water to maintain a balance in concentration. This makes them swell (which is why if someone is severely dehydrated you can kill them if you give them water too rapidly) and naturally add pressure against blood vessels and increase blood pressure.

Comment Re:But radio plays a lot of Jay Z (Score 2) 203

I think a lot of what was independent radio moved online where it can reach a bigger base that isn't limited by physical geography. With the advent of the podcast anyone can have a show about anything and reach the entire planet (Local internet censorship rules apply. Check your country's rules.) which means its possible to support doing that as a full or part time job.

There are even sites like Patreon that have set themselves up to make it easier for people to do just this. I went to their website and found some group that's getting ~$46,000 per month for their podcast through donations. Fuck if I know what Chapo Trap House is or what their podcast is about, but the name alone sounds like the same kind of unique oddity that would have been on a small radio station at one point.

Previously, I probably would have never been able to discover almost any of that content. Maybe being a small local success that never quite took off and had a larger regional or national platform has adds a certain charm or mystique, but I can see why some of those content producers would want to move beyond that. Hell, if you're really niche, you may truly need a global reach just to get enough people to justify calling it an audience.

I'll grant you that it might be sad to see radio go. I've got some fond memories of listening to the local radio or even calling in a few times, but I honestly don't listen to much actual radio since I don't have a long commute to work and modern smartphones have made it easy to store hundreds of hours of music and podcasts. I can be my own curator of content.

Comment Re:No surprise... (Score 1) 224

Price gouging is not necessary and what's to stop consumers from voting for laws that make it illegal? After all if there are no rules then why should the public not follow the same logic that the corporations do and follow their own self-interest? If their is no fairness and only self-interest and it is every man for himself then fuck the corporations. Am i right?

Sure, the public could very well pass that law. I'm guessing that after doing it, a lot of companies would move out of that area. There's no law that says that they have to do business, so if there's no incentive, why stick around?

Capitalism and free markets operate on the principles that people (and collectives of people) are self-interested and greedy pricks. If you notice that someone is selling widgets for $200, but think you could sell them for $150, you're probably going to do it because no one wants to buy a widget for $200 when they can get them for $150 because the consumer is just as greedy as the producer. You don't price shop and then buy the same product at a higher cost do you? So really you're just as self-interested as the companies selling the products. Maybe you're some kind of self-styled "conscious consumer" that looks at something beyond just the price, but you're really still doing the same thing only weighing additional factors beyond the monetary cost. You're still greedy, it's just that you're greedy for something other than money.

If they have shown that they cannot and will not behave in an honorable manner then why shouldn't society force them to do so? If they themselves do not believe in any sort of principle other than self-interest they certainly cannot complain about it when the rest of us do the same. How about a law making any profit margin greater than 5% illegal and punishable by prison time?

So, would you do your current job for less than 95% of your current wage? I'm guessing that if you have any savings it could be argued that your wage is far in excess of your cost, therefore you're personally profiting from exploiting someone else. Should we now lock you up?

But what if a company just decides to pay their CEO a lot more so they're only making a 2% profit, or better yet they just pay even more and are now taking a loss? Are you now going to create a more contrived set of rules to determine who isn't being moral (and while we're on the topic, why is your moral code the correct one? Did God hand it to you on stone tablets?) and therefore deserving punishment.

But here's the best thing about a free and open market. When profits are absurdly high it encourages new competition. If someone is currently making $50 in profit for each sale, perhaps I could do the same and be happy with only $40 in profit. The problem becomes self-correcting and you only start to see problems as a result of some outside interference, typically from a government. The biggest example (at least for the technology space) being patent laws that prohibit the competition that markets need in order to naturally be effective.

I'll take the system that accounts for human behavior and self-regulates precisely because of that human nature over one that tries to accomplish results by government demand. Historically, the second hasn't worked out very well and if it were effective, the Soviet Union would have won the cold war. Instead the communist countries collapsed and the middle class has grown by leaps in bounds in those former communist countries because they've moved towards market-based economies.

Comment Re:No surprise... (Score 5, Insightful) 224

Every company does this, and a lot of people (you don't see many people offering to lower their salary) do as well. Hell, you could probably argue that the new prices for both companies are still gouging for want of competition as I expect that both companies will be making healthy profits which suggests there's still room for prices to come down.

Ultimately though many people still bought Intel processors at those prices because they found them to be worth the money. You still could have bought an AMD processor at that time, so it isn't as though you were forced to buy Intel. However, the Bulldozer architecture was garbage so most people gladly paid the extra money because they wanted the extra performance.

Comment Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? (Score 1) 75

Funny you mention worms: Here's another video showing it off:

We're still a long way away from understanding this well enough to do anything really crazy, but we're starting to get a grasp of how it works.

Comment Re:How is FILMING "speech"? (Score 4, Insightful) 180

The same way written text, or a drawing with no words, or any other form of expression is considered speech.

The first amendment was created in a time when things like radio, television, the internet, etc. didn't exist and were perhaps beyond imagination. However, it's evident that the idea was ensure a freedom of expression, regardless of medium. I only wish they'd get the same fucking clue when it comes to the fourth amendment because computers and phones are pretty obviously covered by similar reasoning.

Comment Re:No you dont (Score 2) 180

In public it's generally held that you don't have the same kind of privacy you can expect in your own home. If you want privacy, you can stay there and keep people out or limit what they're allowed to do on your property. If you really want privacy, you could go buy a few acres off out in the hills and scarcely be bothered at all should you keep to yourself.

Comment Re:Try Again... (Score 1) 39

Why are you even bringing that up? TFS doesn't even mention the A10 or talk about the Exynos 9 being the fastest SoC, just faster and more efficient than their previous Exynos 8, which should be expected if they're manufacturing it on a new process node and made no architectural changes at all.

Comment Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score 1) 331

Okay, lets say you have two independent papers which both come to the same conclusion. If they both independently have a 60% chance of being wrong, they only have a 36% chance of both being wrong. If you take 10 independent papers with 9 of them agreeing, it is far more likely that the 1 outlier is wrong than the 9 other papers, regardless of the reproducibility failure rate of each individual paper.

I think using a probabilistic model presents its own issues though. Take your example, but ask what if they both made the exact same major error (perhaps it was even a really easy one to make or due to some unknown factor that no one could have seen) then they're both 100% wrong in fact. Science is really hard, because there's a natural human tendency to ask, "What do I need to do in order to prove this correct?" when we should really be asking "Have I done every conceivable thing possible in order to try to disprove any possible other alternative explanations and account for factors that might also lead to a result?"

Your single outlier could be the one paper that has discovered and accounted for the previously unknown factor or discovered some other problem with previous research. You can't just conclude that since in the majority of cases this is unlikely therefore we can dismiss the outlier. You still have to look at it, have a discussion about it, and see whether or not it's worth considering or if it means the other 9 studies need to be rerun to account for new information.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...