Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:Competing theories (Score 1) 115

Here's some past examples of True Pundit "journalism" for you.

  * Clinton secretly wearing mini stealth earbud to receive answers from her team during the debate

  * Clinton was using secret hand signals to tell Lester Holt what to say

  * Claims Clinton had a medical issue during the debate and Trump mouthed the word "Seizure"

  * Offers a $1m reward (as if a website like True Pundit has $1m) for Clinton's medical records, suggesting that she has "dementia, post-concussion syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, brain tumor, brain injury, complex partial seizures, and/or many more alleged ailments" and is followed by a doctor disguised as a Secret Service agent carrying an autoinjector of diazepam.

Comment Re: Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 2) 115

Um, have you seen their Twitter feed lately? It's a nonstop feed of anti-Clinton propaganda, half of it retweets, a lot of the claims so bad that even Wikileaks supporters on the Wikileaks Reddit sub have been calling them out on it. It's morphed into Breitbart.

They're even repeating Trump's "rigged election" lines:

There is no US election. There is power consolidation. Rigged primary, rigged media and rigged 'pied piper' candidate drive consolidation.

Comment Re:Humans, not AI... (Score 1) 183

Any AI in the foreseeable future will be under control of human beings, either due to laws or financial ownership. I'm not the least worried about AI, but having watched this election, the humans in my country scare the shit out of me.

I agree that it seems implausible that an AI will "rebel" and set its own goals, that is still sci-fi. But ordinarily those scary men would have to enlist the help of many others, like the old DDR (East Germany) where almost a hundred thousand of a population of 16 million were STASI agents. Use a NSL, use a computer to transcribe it and analyze who is talking to who when and about what and for how long and you could have a quite Orwellian database with only a hundred people involved. Same thing with bank transactions, electronic tickets, number plate scanners, facial recognition, deep packet scanning and whatnot the automatic collection and processing enables a very small but organized and powerful fraction of the population to surveillance and control the rest.

I'm not really sure we could reverse that trend because just like we might discuss the pros and cons of everyone having tiny little digital cameras on them at all times it is still extremely unlikely to change. The average person is leaving more and more electronic traces and even those who try to avoid it is often found by metadata from their friends or they stand out by being the black hole that isn't sharing. Very often the system is rigged towards it, for example we didn't want bus drivers to get robbed so much so now it's a lot more expensive to pay cash than a prepaid subscription or cell phone payment, both of which link to a real identity here in Norway. People do what's cheapest so the few people who pay cash stand out. And really it's no problem until it is a problem, but then you're usually too late to change it.

Comment Re:Yeah, depending on your audience, lets (Score 1) 147

I might object to it at my kid's Christmas pageant

When exactly is Trump saying such things at your kid's Christmas pageant? Or is Facebook showing up and re-posting such things while the kids are performing?

in this case their Facebook wall.

Perhaps you need to do a better job of controlling the safe space you keep your offspring in, as well as how they respond to such things when they encounter it.

Did you know there is also violent imagery and porn on the internet? Best keep them offline. TV has some of it too, better keep that turned off.

Comment Re:About time. (Score 1) 498

I'm not disagreeing, as I think you may have a valid point about self-selection and high-IQ people, however what was different in the past 100 years or so about how high-IQ people dated and found partners? Are you alleging that high-IQ people generally married stupider people in the past, before dating sites become popular? (This may very well be true, I'm just posing the question.)

I do think it'd be interesting to do a big study on autism-spectrum kids and look at their parents.

But one factor I think that may be much bigger is the parents' ages. People are having kids later in life now than in the past. Women are waiting until their 30s and even 40s before having kids, whereas 50 years ago they always did it in their 20s. Back then, people married younger, and women frequently didn't go to college, so it was probably perfectly normal for a high-IQ man to go to college, finish up in his early 20s (or mid 20s if he did an advanced degree), and then marry a younger woman who's in her very early 20s, and start popping out kids right away. These days, women are all going to college (colleges are now 60% female, 40% male from what I read), and getting professional careers since they can't count on marrying a man to support them (both because of divorce and also the need for dual incomes to maintain a middle-class lifestyle), so they're waiting until much later. Both sperm and egg quality is affected by age, egg quality moreso since the ova are all generated early in a woman's life and don't regenerate.

Comment Re:About time. (Score 1) 498

My mother was a nurse. I met some of her coworkers, and even worked in the same hospital for a little while as food service worker before college. Not only did they not impress me with their intelligence, I thought it really interesting just how many of these nurses were smokers and had to take regular smoke breaks. My mother complained a lot about how they could take paid time to go outside and smoke, but she wasn't supposed to because she wasn't a smoker.

I'm sorry, but anyone who willingly smokes cigarettes is not someone I'm going to trust over an MD for medical advice.

Comment Re:About time. (Score 1) 498

I've never heard that there's different strains of Measles, and I suspect it's not true.

What *is* true is that getting a vaccine does not necessarily make you immune to the virus. There's a 90-something percent chance it'll work for you, but there's some small chance it won't "take". Nothing's perfect in biology. But this isn't normally a problem because when 90+% of the population is properly vaccinated, we get "herd immunity", and the virus becomes extremely rare or even extinct because there's insufficient vectors to spread it. So if you're one of the unlucky few who don't gain lasting immunity to the virus, you'll probably never notice because the disease is so rare due to herd immunity that you're never exposed to it.

The big problem with these anti-vax morons is that when too many people listen to them, too many people (usually children) go unvaccinated, and the whole herd immunity protection breaks down and we get outbreaks at Disneyland.

And it's not just an unlucky 1% or so who don't gain immunity for some reason, there's also a small portion of the population that's allergic to the vaccine or can't have it for some valid medical reason: those people are also relying on herd immunity to keep them safe from infection, so these anti-vax assholes are putting their lives at risk too.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 125

I spent quite a bit more than that for my phone, but it too was a used phone from Ebay, a Galaxy S5 (about $150). I'm quite happy with it, and a couple of years ago when it was new it was the fanciest phone out there, and still is very, very nice (plus it has great CyanogenMod support, lots of cheap repair parts available in case something breaks, cheap OEM batteries available, etc.). It's still getting regular OS updates too. I'm quite happy with it and don't see why I'd want to pay any more than that for a phone when I can get a barely-used flagship phone for so cheap just by staying a couple years behind the cutting edge. Phones have plateaued technologically anyway, so I don't see how newer phones are really any better; I don't need a 4k screen, when my 1080p screen already looks fantastic. Maybe in 2-3 years I'll upgrade to what's state-of-the-art today.

I agree about Ting too. I have 3 phones on that, and the bill is around $55/month, so less than $20/month per phone. It helps using WiFi calling when I'm at home to keep my usage down.

Comment Re:They are richer (Score 1) 125

That's not necessarily true. I've noticed, and I've seen at least one other comment in this discussion here saying, that a lot of people with the latest iPhones are frequently people who complain about money problems and are not even remotely rich. The monthly payment plan makes it possible for them to afford these phones, even though they really have no business spending that money on a high-end phone when they don't have any savings and probably wouldn't be able to pay their rent if they had a hiccup with their paycheck.

Slashdot Top Deals

All constants are variables.