Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

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.

Comment third party? (Score 1) 147

"legal theory that it had already been disclosed to a third party, in this case a telephone company"

How could anyone interpret the phone company being a 3rd party in such a case? I'd say they are the 1st party, maybe I could even be convinced that they are the 2nd party (the user being the 1st), but 3rd? The phone company is the first party to get and possess the location information, it comes though their infrastructure, it's in their database, they handle the information, and they can provide it to the police. Also, you don't "disclose" your location, you just acknowledge that they know it, since them knowing your location is an integral functional part of their service.Ehh.

Comment interesting, but wrong (Score 1) 211

"The argument for lowercasing Internet is that is has become wholly generic[...]"

I don't think that's the case. Everyone still refers to it as "the" Internet, since there are lots of networks, but there's only one Internet. It's not like there are lots of internets out there (like one of the bad examples, "telephone"), and it's alo not a natural phenomenon like the other bad example, "electricity". It's the one, and I can't see why it couldn't be kept capitalized. I don't much care if it's lower case of not, but I can't agree with the argument here. Also, "the two names for the great global network" is just wrong - their meaning might have merged for the general public, but they are not the same thing.

Comment Re:From a security perspective... (Score 1) 924

"Linux has a fighting chance still to be relevant in the future, exactly because it changes."

Well, you assume every change is for the better.

Which is idiotic.

This change is a perfect example.

Also a perfectly good reminder about the f*ing boundless arrogance systemd's developers are equipped with.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 4, Insightful) 924

"Because there is not other way for logind to determine that "screen" was one of the things a user actualy intends to keep running, or something that is still running because it's exit logic is misbehaving."

Bad point of view. It shouldn't be systemd's task to decide who is running properly and who is not. If a process lingers because of some bad behavior or bug, than that should be corrected, but assuming every process is an idiot and should be killed is very stupid. The default behavior should be - as it always was - that if a process is running after the user left, does so intentionally. Such decades old expected behavior should not be changed because of some idiot thinks everyone's usage patterns fits his own.

I was lucky to read about this before I updated to this new systemd version (which I didn't), but we can't assume everyone will read about it, they're in for a real treat.

Comment Re:Not a fan (Score 1) 924

"killing leftover processes on logout. In my world, that's what I actually expect"

Well, he's simply an arrogant idiot. Usually, that wouldn't be a problem, but when it affects thousands of users, it surely becomes a big one. It takes a particularly huge moron to think everyone uses their computers like Mr. Know-it-all.

Slashdot Top Deals

"'Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true." -- Poloniouius, in Willie the Shake's _Hamlet, Prince of Darkness_