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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Would they believe (Score 2) 346

"that it's possible that someone doesn't have twitter and/or facebook?"

Well, it's possible, but whether they'd believe it or not, that's an interesting question.

It's also that someone has an account which they won't believe it's real, possibly causing problems - like my twitter acc, which I set up at the time of the Icelandic volcano eruptions 5-6 years ago to follow related news feeds and flight informations and never used it for anything else :)

Comment Re:SystemD? (Score 2) 538

"What ever happened to the principle of single responsibility? Where a tool does one thing and does it well, and you put tools together to do whatever?"

It does one thing [questionably] well, problem is that that one thing is called "everything" :P

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 2) 990

"BTW, IIRC, there are now places where "super-charges" can be done in 20-30 minutes"

Well, nice. The issue is that if 90% of cars would be electric, all those cars would need an always available overnight charging station, but not all people have their own garages and unless plugs for charging would be available _everywhere_ on the street - so you can plug the car in at every position on your street - this 90% is simply not viable. Even today there are cases where you have to wait for charging stations to become available, and the few stations in malls et al. are i). not enough for the 90% and ii). not an option for those who park on the street - and they make up the most of that 90% -, and iii). they won't be free/cheap anymore when 90% become electric (also, tax breaks will disappear well before that).

Well, all is good, and it's good to know 90% could theoretically become electric today (given the proper infrastructure), it will take a looong time for everything to align just well for that number to become real.

Also, batteries either will become much better by then, or the airlines will be really happy since we'll need to fly+rent for every trip longer than half-a-day (and that's how relaxed roadtrips become airport hassle filled expensive frustrations).

Comment extortion (Score 1) 26

It's just typical govt bullying, using their powers to get just enough money out of companies' pockets that they will consider paying for the idiots to go away.

"Google of forcing retailers to install and keep a suite of its app on mobile phones"

Well, Google could stop "forcing" (yeah, people are stupid, but in such cases it's on purpose) Android on others, even better, could stop giving it away, buy out some manufacturer, build their own Nexus lines and let all other phone makers die in pain. Imagine that :)

Comment prices (Score 1) 182

"... stopping them from doing so would raise broadband rates ..."

I don't believe there is anything here on this Earth or anywhere in the freakin' Universe that could ever stop US broadband providers from continuously rising their incredibly high prices. About privacy, you should've already gotten used to loosing all versions of it - both in the US and elsewhere -, and don't expect to actually have better privacy even if you end up paying for it. They'll still give every information to everyone asking for it, plus, do you really think they'd get your money and invest in actually protecting your privacy? Right.

Comment switching languages? (Score 1) 331

It's a stupid question. I never switch languages. I use several. Hell, by the time I finished highschool I was quite fluent in half a dozen. That was 19 years ago, extrapolate. I have favorites, not many, but usually I code in what's easier to do what I want to do, or in what is specifically requested. That's it. The question is still stupid.

Comment bull (Score 1) 148

"Licensing, not exceptions to copyright, drives innovation. Innovation is best achieved through licensing agreements..."

I do enjoy sometimes when they keep trying to re-interpret and re-explain what's what, but it does get boring after a while. And, of course, it's all bullcrap. But I wish they all would be transported to a universe where innovation is best achieved through licensing agreements and have fun over there :)

Comment None of the above (Score 1) 301

My answer would be "None of the above" since technically I never registered on facebook and I have never made an account, but some idiot - I have no clue, who - a few years ago used one of my e-mail addresses to create an account. I started to receive all kinds of notifications and stuff, until I got frustrated by it, actually logged in, changed the password to something unguessable and disabled the account.

Comment too much fuss (Score 4, Insightful) 209

First, the paper is about safely interruptible AI algorithms. Not some AI kill switch.

Second, everyone - commenters included - seem to confuse AI with artificial consciousness. Killing an AI should always be fairly easy, since such algorithms are targeting specific application areas where it can learn to be better (e.g., recognizing things, performing specific movements, etc.), and in such systems it should be straightforward to keep basic control mechanisms separated from the algorithmic parts that deal with the task and are allowed to improve upon themselves by continuous learning. In some hypothetical self-aware artificial consciousness, this wouldn't be so easy, since such a system in theory would be able to recognize it's own system parts and deal with them. However, such systems are so far off in sci-fi land, that it's not much point in loosing sleep about the issue.

Comment dreams (Score 5, Insightful) 260

"[...] more capable than human intelligence [...]"

I just can't understand all this nonsense some high profile people are talking about regarding AI these days. We're so far away from "real" AI today, that it's not even funny. While there has been great progress in machine learning in the last 2-3 decades - recent results pushing results more to the spotlight -, what we have are certain specific tasks where we have good results for (pattern/object/image recognition, games, etc.) but we have no intelligence in any sense of the word. Every working architecture that we have today is targeted and extensively trained for a single, very specific task (e.g., playing go, recognizing scenes and objects, recognizing specific patterns in signals and mimicking them - robotic arms, Google's music composer, etc.), incapable of doing anything else. E.g., an architecture built and trained for classifying and recognizing certain images and objects can't do anything with audio signals, radar signals, a go playing "AI" can't play chess, etc. No generalization, no transfer of gained experience for application to other tasks, and no real high level understanding and reasoning about anything. And let's not even start about chatbots.

I could go on with this, but my point is, talking about AI being more than humans, taking over, etc. is still very much sci-fi territory.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde