Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:How (Score 1, Informative) 76

Really Potsy....

"Uber told new drivers they would be able to lease a new car for around $119 per week, the actual lease rates never dipped below $200 from late 2013 to April 2015"

"despite its promise of delivering "the best financing options available," it turns out that Uber's rates were actually worse than consumers with similar credit scores could have gotten elsewhere."

You might want to try reading sometime. It will help you look less like an ass.

Comment Re:Massive failure from all involved (Score 1) 166

RTFA. No they don't argue it is true. They just argue that the methods should be able to deduce how the micro chip works because they have all this extra data.

More to the point: "Gaël Varoquaux, a machine-learning specialist at the Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation, in France, says that the 6502 in particular is about as different from a brain as it could be."

You knowledge and understanding of brain research is very primitive.

Comment Re:Massive failure from all involved (Score 1) 166

No the point of the article was "questions whether more information is the same thing as more understanding."

Using computer chips as test subjects does not validate or invalidate research methods used in neuroscience. What validates or invalidates the methods and the results of the methods is how well it predicts human behavior. That's all that counts. Do these results provide insights or not. Studying a different subject matter does not get you any closer to understanding how the human brain functions.

If you studied neuroscience you would understand that.

Comment Re:Massive failure from all involved (Score 1) 166

It's done more for explanation but not for actual comparison.

FTA: "Gaël Varoquaux, a machine-learning specialist at the Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation, in France, says that the 6502 in particular is about as different from a brain as it could be. Such primitive chips process information sequentially. Brains (and modern microprocessors) juggle many computations at once. And he points out that, for all its limitations, neuroscience has made real progress. The ins-and-outs of parts of the visual system, for instance, such as how it categorises features like lines and shapes, are reasonably well understood."

It's also widely understood that large data sets and analytics will not necessary reveal great insights simply because of the size of the data set. Which is why I thought the article was a fluff piece that provided no insights.

Comment LMOL (Score 1) 389

It was a fad. Everyone knew it. It wasn't a matter of if but when 3D would die. Good riddance. 3D debacle delayed work on OLED and better picture technology.

Comment Re:Original content (Score 1) 145

Programming costs money, which puts them in the same bind as the Networks: Programming is not cheap.

"Investors brought up concerns over increasing costs. For fiscal 2017, Netflix said its free cash flow deficit will be about $2 billion in 2017, compared to $1.7 billion in 2016, which is because the company wants to own "more content and more content categories," said chief financial officer David Wells."

So it won't be long before commercials show up on Netflix or see your subscription cost go up again.

Comment Re:Advertising and greed (Score 1) 145

The article does not say that. The article said that "Almost half of the most searched for shows this year were Netflix originals.." Searched not watched. It would be easy to say watched. But they said searched. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Netflix is not going to drop network programming. Hate to break it to you Potsy, ALL programming is designed for viewers. It's designed to get the most eye balls. Even Netflix needs viewers.

Comment McKinsey & Company (Score 1) 409

Do we really need to read trash published by this company.

"A 1997 article and a book it published in 2001 on "The War for Talent"...The authors found that the best-performing companies were "obsessed" with acquiring and managing the best talent. They advocated that companies rank employees by their performance and promote "stars", while targeting under-performers for improvement or layoffs. After the book was published, Enron, a company which followed many of its principles, was involved in a scandal that led to its bankruptcy."

But hey just look at these insightful statements from the article:

"Automation is happening, and it will bring substantial benefits to businesses and economies worldwide"

"...machine learning have put us on the cusp of a new automation age"

"Automation will change the daily work activities of everyone..."

Hello the Industrial Revolution is calling, they want their insights back. Perhaps they have some pithy quotes from Eli Whitney. Jackasses...

Slashdot Top Deals

Luck, that's when preparation and opportunity meet. -- P.E. Trudeau