Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:Uh what? (Score 2) 30

You are correct; it's worded terribly.

The paper ( ) specifically mentions that their method allows for GPGPU processing due to parallel block evaluation instead of 'sliding window' evaluation of the image:
"Unlike the sliding-window method, which scans an image in a sequential manner, parallel window-searching divides the input image into several blocks and simultaneously performs classification on one block using each GPU core."

This is a step forward in commodification of self-driving car technology.

Comment Re:The American obsession with self-reliance (Score 1) 470

1) feasts were ways to use up overharvest that could not be properly stored for the winters

Bullshit (if you believe no king of old ever had a feast out of decadence, you are a fool) and even if true it would be besides the point. The point was about plentifulness. In addition one could make a point of the quality of the food, which for a king would be very good, even by today's standards. Haute cuisine cooking is not high-tech stuff. The ingredients are still key.

2) before central heating and insulation, the castles were drafty buildings that needed fireplaces in every inhabited room during much of the year

The servants deal with the wood and the fireplaces. Problem solved.

3) handmade furniture was the only kind at the time, mass production was an odd dream of a few

Yep, and you can bet your bottom that the king had the nicest handmade furniture in the realm.

4) armies were expenses, not luxuries

Yeah, tell that to the peasants who were executed without a fair trial. Even now, in the US, poor people are easily fucked over by the law.

5) the farmland is delegated to the Midwest states, and the produce available everywhere

Which poor people can't afford. They are mostly stuck with cheap and terrible fast'food'.
Also, the point was about owning land and having control over it.

6) who needs 10 horses when even a cheap car can match 50?

People who like to go horseback riding, play polo, hunt on horseback, tame horses, have horse races, or like dressage (you'll notice a trend of amusement and required amount of wealth here).

7) if you want the idealized pleasure of a hunt, Sony can help. If you want meat, check the market

Missed the point again. This again revolves around owning resources.

8) the old ships weren't as fancy as you imagine

Yeah, you could probably buy one of those for 10 bucks nowadays. Who the hell wants a sailing ship anyway?

9) ok, yeah the jewelry is hard to match as gold and silver reserves haven't grown that much. But the quality is better if you do get some modern bling

Your arguments get progressively weaker. This one is just laughable. In essence you are saying "modern poor people live more comfortable than the kings of old because even though the kings had massive amounts expensive jewelry, modern jewelry is slightly nicer if a poor person would have the funds to buy them."

Comment Re:The American obsession with self-reliance (Score 5, Insightful) 470

If the modern poor live more comfortably than the kings of old

They don't, though.

Sure, there are a number of aspects of life in which great progress has been made (sanitation, health care, means of communication), but the modern poor still do not have servants, regular feasts with more food and wine than their (many) guests could eat, castles with countless rooms filled with handmade furniture, armies, larges swaths of farmland, stables full of horses, vast private hunting grounds, sailing ships or rooms filled with handmade fine clothing and jewelry.

Would you honestly choose living like a modern poor person in some shitty housing project or trailer park over living like a king of old in a castle with servants? I highly doubt it.

Submission + - Trump's proposed budget would result in big spending cuts for renewables (

Lucas123 writes: The Trump administration's newly released 2018 budget proposal outlining changes to discretionary would likely cut spending on renewable energy. For example, not only does the proposed budget cut the EPA and Energy Department budget by 31% and 6%, respectively, it would also not fund the Clean Power Plan and other climate change programs. With the CPP gone, the U.S. would likely see fewer retirements of coal-fired power plants due to carbon emissions and less impetus for the procurement of utility-grade solar power. The good news for renewables: the budget would not have any impact on the solar investment tax credit, carbon tax proposals or state-based solar subsidies, according to Amit Ronen, director of the Solar Institute at George Washington University. Additionally, renewable energy resources, such as solar panels, have gained too much momentum and aren't likely to be deterred by regulatory changes at this point, according to Raj Prabhu, CEO of Mercom Capital Group, a clean energy research firm. For example, even with the dissolution of the CPP, the number of coal-fired generators is still expected to be reduced by about one-third through 2030, or by about 60 gigawatts of capacity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Meanwhile, wind and solar are by far the fastest growing energy sectors, which indicates an appetite by utilities and consumers that is highly unlikely to be slowed by regulatory changes at the federal level, experts said.

Comment Re:Whatsit and thingy at Tenagra. (Score 1) 161

Pretty much anyone who goes on about the Singularity is a loon. Not because it's necessarily a fundamentally loony concept, but because it attracts loons like moths to a flame.

Great way to start a post. Really shows a lack of bias.

For now it looks like we're going to get mindless but very complex systems that can do most things better than humans

You make the mistake of believing that human brains are leaps and bounds more advanced than (say) chimp brains. They're not. The difference is very very significant yet very very slight (in an evolutionary sense). Reevaluate when you expect us to create AI that reaches chimp levels. Then add ten years. Maybe twenty.
In any case be sure to evaluate your arguments against the 'loony' Singularity concept for a primate life form of choice, such as chimps. That approach takes away a lot of the self-preservation instincts that lead you to the irrational rhetoric that puts humans on an unbreakable pedestal.

This (long) read is actually insightful:

Slashdot Top Deals

Did you know that for the price of a 280-Z you can buy two Z-80's? -- P.J. Plauger