Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re:This is going to get worse with USB-C (Score 1) 119

USB-C needed some more refinement before release so we have a new set of issues to worry about:

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Also, USB-C and thunderbolt etc over this connector end up requiring IC chips in the cables themselves as well. Those cheap USB-A and mini cables are a thing of the past and the same goes for the charger adapters too. USB-C is not an improvement other than it's 2 sided plug. All so we can only have 1 plug for everything... except not everything since thunderbolt 3 will have to be noticed with a tiny logo because the plug won't indicate the type of port anymore. USB-C is 1 step forward and 2 steps back. USB-A version 3 was good enough and we even have wall outlets for it.

Frankly apples lightning connector is the nicest plug design I've seen since the 1/8 headphone plug (which should be included in everything with audio, forever.)

Comment Important Distinction (Score 1) 1051

The point I was failing to make was that YOU can do whatever but the corporation for which "own" you CAN NOT do everything you want.

People get jailed for STEALING from their own corporation (and other crimes) because their corporation is not them.

I know a man who used to work for a bank and his job was to go to small corporations and take them over for the bank so they wouldn't default on their loans. Sometimes he would fire the founder and "owner" from the corporation and put somebody else in charge. Often he would end up catching a family member employee doing something illegal and it was the corporation that pressed charges, not the relative (or a deal was made... interesting stories.) I did some work for 1 of these places: CEO's wife wasn't even an employee but she used the biz like it was her bank account, so did her son (the IT guy) and both are now in jail.

Comment Obama picked the Fed (Score 1) 529

and here I expected Trumptards to give him credit...

Credible economists (not on TV) said for quite a while the Obama stimulus was not large enough and followed the "lost decade" where Japan did almost the same things. Obama did restore the economy poorly (which is still better than nothing.) Before one blames him as if he was a dictator, you have to realize that the GOP prevented it from being what it should have been and that Obama's poor negotiation skills always had him beginning with a compromise as a starting point. He really wouldn't get a burger without tomato because he'd start by giving up the buns and still end up having to remove the tomato himself. Combine that with an unprecedented opposition with no rational explanation outside of racism or disguised corruption.

Comment Granted Government Powers (Score 1) 1051

Sure, stop black people from stepping foot into your home or your store. Refuse to buy or sell with them. It's your right!

If you want the legal protections of a corporation then you have to give up such rights just as you give up legal ownership when you hand the business assets over to the corporation.

Corporations are legal entities defined by government. They exist as part the government system; though they are independently managed.... a few more steps of indirection above an "independent" government dept.

Government too often violates the law by going to 3rd, 4th, or 5th parties... almost always corporations who are improperly allowed private rights. If they were actually private humans without the super powers corporations have thru government there would be fewer people willing to do things they could end up in civil and/or criminal court over (as opposed to their corporation which is abuse to hide corruption.)

Comment Re:Big government helping the people (Score 1) 204

The form of government does not really matter, HOW WELL the government functions is what matters. Ben Franklin had a similar position but the reason he wasn't famous (or infamous) for it was because that position is agnostic and doesn't get into preachy positions.

If FDR was a dictator it would be as close to utopia as humanly possible, until he died. Then lesser people would want similar power but be unable to responsibly handle it. Communism works will for a monastery or convent and other small groups where they can detect and dispel corrosive elements.... as a system it fails to scale because it's prone to bad membership. In theory, a well run communist government is possible but for how long? Democracy is similar, citizen corruption and incompetence eventually becomes wide spread enough that it always falls into despotism (Ben Franklin's position too.)

The goal is to get a well administered government for as long as possible and it's foolish to assume it will last forever; even more foolish to fight hard to preserve a sicking ship when the passengers are setting it on fire to dry it out.

Comment Re:It gets worse (Score 1) 204

An application of online ranking systems like ebay to your whole life should have been imagined in the 90s but we've seen little of it in fiction - how come?? The Matrix doesn't count, that's Plato's idea. One would think that an imaginative person could have thought up something between 1948 (Orwell 1984) and an implementation of it in the 1990s.

Black Mirror (netflix) Season 3 ep 1.

Comment Re:I wonder why you can't see it up close. (Score 1) 241

Steel buildings flex. I would wonder how stable their sensing is because if it doesn't average over time it could be movement of the building they are detecting... if not, how do they compensate for that?

Also, they are measuring from space so one would assume they can only measure the top and the street next to the building. Again we have a sampling problem in that both of those could change with temperature enough that I would think a tower would differ in height... even concrete has to have expansion joints... In addition, I would wonder about the extreme height, where slight shifts multiplied up the height would amount to noticeable amounts. We don't heavily measure the ground either, the earth itself might move around like really slow fluid that we are just now detecting (aside from the large quick earthquake shifts.) I'm just wondering...that whole city could be shifting around by smaller amounts (besides during earthquakes.)

Comment Talk about cherry picking (Score 1) 1426

You attack an argument with a crazy argument about how if you removed 12% of the total population of the USA from the vote by choosing an area where Clinton does well then Trump wins by a huge margin.

There are few people in support of the electoral college system including many of those who are only in support now because it helps their current position (even Trump himself!) The founders had reasons at the time and some are no longer relevant today and as for the rest, they designed the system to be modified so it may live on instead of falling into despotism early (which it has been already; it's likely beyond repair.)

Parliamentary systems are superior but we aren't smart enough to peaceably evolve. Same for instant runoff voting, mandatory voting, secure paper voting, or having a "none of the above" option (which brilliantly humbles leaders.)

Comment Re:Constitutional rights (Score 1) 345

Yes, I know. The Declaration of Independence is not irrelevant because as you said part of it ended up in there; it's still relevant because it was the stated reason for the whole thing happening in the first place. It is the reason, the purpose, the mission statement that later created the other stuff which had to be inspired around the ideals that motivated some people to rise up and create the situation where the constitution was written to uphold the ideals they literally fought hard for.

Implementing it by fighting (deletion) then by creating a government (define functions) then follow it (execution) until it falls into despotism (pwned.)

Comment old campaigning and old politics (Score 1) 667

Hillary did a lot of stuff by the book. She is that kind of person too.
No Fly zones historically polls well and sounds tough without much risk or investment if you actually do it. The threat of it has considerable weight as well. It is a political tactic and it was being used during a campaign. It wasn't something to take that seriously but it was something they should have researched instead of just relying on past knowledge.

The experience they drew upon worked against them because the public was so sick of being played by the numbers that it was hurting them and they didn't seem to realize just how much. That said, ANY legitimate criticism you can come up with because it was so close.

Comment Fool (Score 1) 742

1) China manufactures for the whole planet not just the USA. China and the EU are both close to the size of the US economy. Not that China wouldn't be hurt if 1/3 of their customers disappeared; but at least 2/3 of their business is not to the USA. (Obviously, ripple effects would cause a global depression.) China can handle millions of their own starving if they want to do so. It's a long time one party authoritarian system over there. The US is more fragile and volatile.

2) Capital will always invest in NEWER factories which cost more upfront when they move factories to the USA. This means MORE automation and far less jobs. On top of that, due to the higher labor costs in the USA there will be more incentive to invest more heavily in automation. Germany isn't forcing corporations to in-source but some are and they are going nearly 100% automation when they do. The result of making manufacturing come back to the USA is going to be growth and advancement in automation and the progress that accelerates will reduce jobs across the board.

Comment 2nd is useless (Score 1) 412

The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the others. The 1st protects the others!

We are not in the 1700s. The simple arms that citizens can amass are toys compared to what governments have available to them. Within 20 years combat drones will probably out number troops. The 2nd was really about well armed local militias instead of a centralized permanently standing army which was preferred because localized militias (armies) separate powers which is a common theme in all the founders work. Even that becomes out dated when anybody with the resources can manufacture an army.

It you look at how badly we have been doing in the middle east, the military grade guns are a problem but the bigger problems have been IEDs and insurgency tactics. The enemy is blended into the local population.... often it is locals we pissed off instead of "winning their hearts and minds" because a good insurgency leverages mistakes and arrogance of the bigger enemy (it is like a violent version of Ghandi's tactics.) Here in the USA even these tactics are more difficult because of the superior propaganda system and surveillance. Citizens freely give up privacy and would likely not fight if they had to give up their cell phones. Kids today are stupid enough to post videos of their crimes and/or their friends post it.

Comment Re:Constitutional rights (Score 1) 345

They won't win; however, some points:

The constitution and it's amendments do not enumerate rights; they are not bestowed upon the people. The people already are have their rights which can only be infringed upon; a big distinction. The constitution even makes this point (go look yourself.)

The people can define and demand recognition of any rights they choose.

Then there is the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" mission statement part where life and liberty can be pretty miserable and so that last inspirational phrase was included.

Comment What is Intelligence? (Score 1) 75

What we have is Applied Intelligence and as far as the Artificial kind of AI that becomes a big philosophical debate. Even so, what is Intelligence? If you start to define it in a way where you can build upon it logically, you end up with obvious conclusions where for example, your house thermostat is intelligent.

The domain or context is essential to the consideration too. So, the house thermostat is intelligent and within it's tiny world it performs quite well adapting and making decisions with it's simple stimuli. It is easy for us humans to think since we can write describe that intelligence in code or as a math function that there is no intelligence, just mechanically defined cause/effect. It is arrogant to define intelligence in terms of capabilities of humans... or just some subset of humans; plus practically speaking, it constrains us to only a select few to be the judges. The thermostat will not perform intelligently playing chess; just as human experts out of their depth do not perform intelligently either.

So lets say we have some math that is powerful enough to describe the problem of winning at Jeopardy. Do you honestly think that we or any math genius will be able to fully grasp that solution? So then do we call that Intelligence? It's "mechanical" but it does a better job than our human solutions. But why is that not intelligence? Because it can be described in some way and copied between machines? (we can't do that with our expert Jeopardy players.) No.

Lets go to a common fall back position: Humans can teach themselves without as much help a broad range of tasks. We have teachers, books etc... but why should we consider that way of learning the only way? Again, we are constraining it to humans. So... how far from "Idiot Savant" do we have to get before we consider it Intelligent? Again still constraining it to humans... What about mentally limited humans, like children? Do we let them off the hook simply because they grow up?

Getting back to the "some math:" What if you could describe incredibly complex real world problems found in life as complex math approximations? Well, that is just what we have been doing and the whole process of finding those mathematical non-linear equations is beyond our intelligence but for some problems our brains somehow do approximate solutions (unless you can find a perfect chess player, etc.) The amazing thing is that the math derived from theories on how our brains work is how we have algorithms which find approximate solutions - these are described as complex non-linear approximations (far better than human descriptions.) It is an iterative discovery process akin to our learning. So you might again say that this math is mechanical... but as we keep getting closer to mirroring human approximation abilities or surpassing them doesn't the trend make you wonder if everything in life can be described mathematically? Humans can describe solutions as math for simple problems but the machines do the work quicker. Is it unfair if a human teacher helps describe the problems and types of math (approaches) needed to learn the best solution to the task? Is it unfair that you learned your alphabet in a linear order? as a song? So do we give up at the point where we have automated the teacher?

Perhaps life is a non-linear approximation of 42... Do we know what the question was? no. does it matter? probably not. But we live in the process of approximating it. ;-)

Slashdot Top Deals

Hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance? -- Charlie McCarthy

Working...