Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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 Simple solution: Unpaid Mechanical Turk (Score 1) 81

Step 1. Find a good set of sources of a variety of fake news. At least one conservative (Brietbart), Russian (RT), and Liberal (Huffington Post) to start.

Step 2. Set up software to track everyone that regularly reads any of those three as your secret mechanical Turk testers. Everything those people like, post, or otherwise support will be fake news.

Step 3. Create a solid scoring system based on your testers.

Basically, use the stupidity of the users against them. Once you find people stupid enough to believe the fairly obviously low production value of fake news, you have your testing machine.

You just have to make sure you get all strains of bias. If new strains show up, be sure to add them to step 1.

Comment Re:Truth (Score 1) 81

It is insightful and about sums up the issue.

I think a lot of this has to do with (excuse me while I silently vomit as I say this) 'thought leaders' - (or in proper terms) 'influential people' deciding that Google should or shouldn't offer up - from politicians to the heads of certain political, social, or other advocacy groups.

In so far as Google intends to placate these concerns, it's up shit creek if it just wants to return actual valid results that aren't influenced by such concerns. That ship has sailed. It has become too big and so must 'reflect society's values'.

Unless it's a little crafty.

All it has to do is create a seperate domain for unfiltered results that operate as old Google did (I know, nothing is unfiltered/unbiased) and let the politicans and media mouths have their sanitised Google results, while anyone who wants real(er) results bookmarks rawfeed.google.com, or whatever.

Comment Re:Vigilante definition (Score 1) 71

Yes because that is their mission. Your complaint is that they are too EFFECTIVE.

There are lots of solid evidence that people dislike government because it is too good at what it does. Then they undermine the government and laugh and say "Hey, now that we have handcuffed them, they can't do anything right.!

Which is why I want to create one to protect us rather than spy on us.

Government agencies are actually more effective than businesses (two thirds accomplish thier goal, vs 1 third for small business).

The problem is that when a government agency fails, it has to keep trying, while a small business that fails goes bankrupt and someone else tries again in a year or two. But government does such important work that we frankly are not willing to go without for the year or two. So we keep the failed agencies around, which makes replacing it harder.

Submission + - The Myth of A Superhuman AI (backchannel.com)

mirandakatz writes: One of the most common questions about the future of artificial intelligence goes something like this: "I’ve heard that in the future computerized AIs will become so much smarter than us that they will take all our jobs and resources, and humans will go extinct. Is this true?" But the assumption that AI will render humans obsolete is serious hyperbole. As Kevin Kelly writes at Backchannel, "buried in this scenario of a takeover of superhuman artificial intelligence are five assumptions which, when examined closely, are not based on any evidence...If the expectation of a superhuman AI takeover is built on five key assumptions that have no basis in evidence, then this idea is more akin to a religious belief—a myth." Don't miss the full, impeccably argued debunking of this pervasive myth.

Comment Re:Myth: Mayer didn't do well for Yahoo! (Score 3, Interesting) 130

The bottom line is that CEOs are supposed to generate value for shareholders

Reports say that Meyer ordered underlings to not buy the resources to prevent and then not report the security breaches at Yahoo! That cost shareholders more than $1B in valuation on the Verizon deal.

That's one heck of a negative RoI. She had the wrong instincts, she did the wrong thing, and her owners paid dearly for it.

speculation about what someone else might have done is unproductive

No, all her competitors invest in security and are not punished by the market for doing so. This is comparing her to the field, not some ubermensch ideal.

Comment Vigilante definition (Score 1) 71

Vigilante definition, from Online Webster:

: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

Note the parenthetic comment - "when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate".

In this case, the processes of law are NON-EXISTENCE. It is by definition inadequate. Yes, this is vigilante justice, mainly because our governments have totally failed to properly regulate these issues.

We need a simple government agency to report internet based vulnerabilities. Once reported, the manufacturer should have one month to fix it - and push the fix out. With monetary fines for a failure to do that - calculated so that 1 vulnerability in 100% of their products cuts 10% of their gross profit (note gross, not net).

Comment Re:BrickerBot (Score 0) 71

Yeah .. there's nothing like a vigilante of whom you approve.

That Batman is the #1 superhero indicates that a very large majority of the public recognizes that the State is limited in ability, resources, effectiveness, and competence.

Imagine you're at a shopping mall, some nut comes in and starts throwing knives at passersby, taking out one shopper every five to ten seconds. There's a grandpa there packing a 9mm under his coat. Do you:
a) want the grandpa to take out the knife-attacker
b) call 911 and wait for the police to arrive

Statists will generally sacrifice all the people's lives in scenario b) because they value group power over individual life, liberty, and property. Non-statists believe in self-defense and third-party defense as a right and even a societal obligation and will go with a) and save all those lives. The Statists will then show up to call grandpa a 'vigilante'.

Fortunately, the Internet is inherently Stateless so the third-party defense doctrine applies. As far as motive - we just heard a couple days ago about the teens on moral crusades, and then there's the possibility that people (at Dyn?) lost their jobs over the recent high-profile Mirai attacks and would want to see that botnet brought down.

Comment Price Elasticity (Score 1) 192

the one that will extract the most profit from consumers' wallets

Oh, dear, an article by a Marxist still living in 1860. They love them class warfare vocabulary.

The online shopping sites are not trying to get the highest price they can for every product. They are trying to get the optimal price for every product.

Often times the optimal price can be the lowest price, or close to it. One only needs to look at Walmart's position at #1 on the Fortune 500 to understand this is true.

The optimal price is one that enables the highest overall profit for the company. Keeping customers coming back is absolutely one requirement for maximizing profit. Low prices directly benefit consumers and producers in many markets.

What Marxists fail to understand is that profit is the information signal that is sent through the economy from consumers to producers to indicate that they approve of what they are doing. A 'Like button' in the parlance of our times.
  Profit is a very good thing, and it benefits consumers by constantly refining the goods available on the market and the prices of those goods.

Granted, Marx didn't have the benefit of game theory or information theory to work with, but modern writers have no excuse for ignoring modern learning (that's already 60-80 years old). Here's a recent Freakonomics episode on price elasticity that might help some aspiring writers (or even economists) who don't even want to take the time to read.

Comment Re:Electronic gate (Score 1) 102

You only have a gate on your property? How did it get past the gate and the guard at the entrance to the subdivision let alone the gate at the end of the driveway.

Yes gate in my gated community, I dont trust these rich fuckers, and it helps keep the asshole retired guys on the HOA board off my fucking lawn and away from the house.

Comment Re:More Vehicle compatbility (Score 1) 139

Would be even better if there was a practical way to plug other vehicles into the network.

I kinda doubt the Tesla superchargers suck at what they do. Tesla has the biggest infrastructure to date and has opened its patents to other manufacturers to use. There is very little benefit to the owner of a Volt or Leaf to not being able to use the supercharger network. There may be benefit to the other vehicles' manufacturers to make their systems proprietary (maybe GM is delusional about "owning all the gas stations of the future" or some silly thing like that).

Y'know, some manufacturer had to first develop the standard gasoline filler spout and gauge, and the other manufacturers' have done pretty well by cooperating on those, keeping diesel out of gas engines, etc. Perhaps at the time Studebaker thought they'd own all the gas stations of the future. Coopetition needs to be described to the boardrooms often times, though.

And, there, you have a car analogy for your car problem. Yo, dog.

Slashdot Top Deals

Everybody needs a little love sometime; stop hacking and fall in love!

Working...