Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Alright then! (Score 2) 33

That plan is in motion and will not be affected by research at some Scottish genetics lab. What they're trying to do is to make sure that wild chickens don't truly go extinct no matter how much wildlife we destroy: They can always be unfrozen and their population can reboot at some unspecified future time when we decide to be better stewards of nature.

Comment Won't work everywhere, or really anywhere else (Score 4, Interesting) 180

The article omits a critical point: that Swedish (Nordic) culture has an almost unique approach to authority that is particularly collaborative and consensual.

This model is not exportable to other contexts without a wholesale change of the destination culture as well...a bit more of an undertaking.

Cf the work by Geert Hofstede

Comment Re:People like Musk need to do more homework (Score 1) 225

Yeah, this Musk guy sounds just like that idiot who was trying to push some online currency linked to your email - as if anyone would ever send money to other people online, just on the promise they mailed you something. And have you heard about that billionaire who thinks he can build a rocket that lands itself? What a fucking joke! He's probably watching too many geek movies, or trying to impress his geek friends. And then there's that rich dude who wanted to start a company that sells only electric cars, and actually make them in the US. Like, who's gonna make batteries for him? Geez! Oh well, if rich people want to throw away their money on geek-topia fantasy projects that could never work, I guess it's their right. Let's all just kick back and laugh at them as they inevitably fail.

Comment well... (Score 1) 225

"...which would make it low enough to clear gas and sewer lines and to be undetectable at the surface.."

First, you probably mean DEEP enough?

And "undetectable at the surface" Sure - unless you nick things like the Aliso Canyon Gas Storage facility (which stores gas as far as 9000 feet down....)

Deep-tunnel digging is pretty much 90% about dealing with the unexpected, because that's the part that fucks you quickly, catastrophically, and often lethally.

That said, I wish him the best. The only thing I see as a barrier is, as usual, the lawyers. I don't believe that the current legal regime as far as who owns/uses/profits from subterranean 'property' is anywhere near where it needs to be to cope with what he's talking about. It's very much a wild-west show, because most of the law seems to deal with MINERAL rights, not access/use rights. Can Musk tunnel 100' under my house without my permission? How about the state capital? What if he's 1000' down?

Good luck, Elon.

Comment Re:What this also proves (Score 1) 106

Let's be clear - I didn't blame it on the scientists.

I simply said that this is an example of "why people are taking scientists less seriously".

I totally agree it's science writing; part of it may be endemic to the democritization of information in the internet age. Formerly, these sorts of fascinating, cutting edge science information would be confined to the pages of discipline-specific journals (who were well able to cover it). If something was really big news, it might show up in the NYT or on the wire, to be parsed and conveyed to other publications by a few credible, experienced 'science' writers.

Now, there's a gajilliion science magazines out there (in print and web form) so there's no possible way that they can all have competent journalists. Further, the news outraces the discipline and shows up on everything from Gizmodo to Slashdot, at BEST getting a half-assed summary from someone who spent 2 mins speed-reading the exec summary of the (as you experienced) paywalled ACTUAL paper.

Comment Sjw's (Score 0) 85

The fact is that SJWs cannot seem to comprehend that inequality in result isn't itself proof of some bias, PARTICULARLY if the bias-factor isn't even part of the algorithm.

Further, the fear is that simple objective analysis will occur without human intervention, and thus lack someone to call racist, sexist etc (in essence, so they're pre-labeling the author of algorithms as racist, sexist etc.).

For example
Your algorithm shows that people below a certain income level fail to repay loans at the normal rate, so it calculates the interest rate upcharge needed to offset the lower rates of repayment. Said upcharge seems to be applied more frequently to minority borrowers = "racism" (even though it's based entirely on income, not skin color)

Comment What this also proves (Score 0) 106

"... to some speculation that the Earth may be losing its magnetic field -..."
Since the data ultimately suggests that fluctuations are completely normal, I submit that this also starts to explain why people are taking scientists less and less seriously.

I suspect that the cadre of researchers crying that the sky was falling was probably a small percentage, yet because of the synergies of such predictions, commercial media, & natural human histrionics, THIS was the narrative being discussed in the broader discourse.

Cf the Cry Wolf syndrome

Comment Re:Uber? (Score 1) 640

"There's a point where cars become too powerful. "

Nothing personal, but fuck your nanny-state ethics.

Either people are self-governing adults, capable of making their own decisions and living with the consequences, or they're not. The only people who aren't - ie the mentally disabled, and children - have their rights and privileges strongly circumscribed.

If they're not, and you're actually asserting that people AREN'T entitled to make their own decisions, then you've taken a giant step onto a mighty slippery slope. Don't get me wrong, there are elites (some genuinely benevolent, others merely camouflaging themselves as such) all over the world that insist they know better how people should live their lives than the stupid masses. We can't let people smoke, it's dangerous. We need to disincentivize people from eating fast food or drinking sugary drinks because they get fat.

I don't think you'd have to look far today to find people who believe democracy itself is fundamentally dangerous, and should be curtailed to some degree (people of BOTH parties, curiously).

I do *not* subscribe to your 'we need to wrap everything in a giant safety net' philosophy, as to me its obvious that it's not far until certain essential liberties start disappearing "for our own good".

Slashdot Top Deals

The bogosity meter just pegged.