Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment Re:Ranked choice FTW (Score 1) 993

Arguing over which of the many available voting systems is best hinders our ability to get any of them in place over the craptastic system we have now. Trying to push something that takes more than 5 sentences to explain is not likely to be successful, regardless of how good the method is.

Comment Re:Write in Bernie Sanders (Score 1) 993

That Republican senators would attempt to wait out an entire Clinton presidency without confirming any Supreme Court justices is completely unfathomable. Could they technically pull it off? Maybe (although recess appointments could potentially be attempted). But it would be political suicide. Of course, their party's imploding anyway, so who knows...

Submission + - How the FAA Shot Down "Uber for Planes" (fee.org)

SonicSpike writes: Imagine traveling from Boston to Martha’s Vineyard in under an hour and for less than $70. Believe it or not, this option was available from Flytenow’s website or app, by looking for a general aviation pilot who was making that trip, and then splitting the cost with that pilot and whoever else was sharing the flight.

Entrepreneurs were bringing private air travel to the masses until Flytenow’s leadership met with members of the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure that they were complying with all laws and regulations.

Instead of embracing this service, the FAA used tortuous logic to ban Flytenow and other online flight-sharing websites because it considered these to be “common carriers” (such as Delta Airlines). Private pilots cannot possibly comply with the myriad regulations that apply to the large airlines.

In what follows, Flytenow founders Alan Guichard and Matt Voska explain why the federal government should make the FAA allow flight sharing to get off the ground.

Comment Re: AI could with by cheating with insane micro (Score 2) 173

Right, you can't build the AI this way and expect to succeed. In Chess, there are a maximum of 32 pieces sharing 64 possible locations. In Starcraft, there could be hundreds of units on the map at any of millions of possible locations. Chess is a complete information game, Starcraft is not. (Your knowledge of your opponent's position and strategy is dependent on what you can see and largely on indirect intuition about what you DON'T see.) In Chess, turns are taken and there is plenty of time to compute each action optimally. In Starcraft, there are orders of magnitude more possible actions you could command, and you must choose which units are most important to focus on at any moment. There's just a fundamentally different approach required. And I think a much more challenging one.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn

Working...