Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re: Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 1) 294

"I don't care if the information about Hillary's lies are part of some Russian plot or not. If the truth is "destabilizing" well then fuck stability. Hillary admitting to having "public" and "private" positions is a piece of information that I, as a citizen, want to have."

Sure, but here's the question you need to ask yourself, given that, are you willing to completely and utterly disregard it when choosing a political candidate to back, given that you have absolutely no idea whether Trump shares the exact same trait due to a lack of similar leaks on his side of the spectrum?

Therein lies the problem, if you're only receiving one side of facts, and are deciding based on only a half-truth, then you're no better off than if someone had just outright lied to you. You're still exactly as likely to make an incorrect choice when you have half the information, as when you have all the information - Wikileaks is influencing the election with half-truths.

The English legal system originally changed it's court vow from "I promise to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth" to "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" precisely because after a few shoddy court cases where the guilty went free it was realised that half-truths can be as misleading as outright lies.

So sure, transparency is great, but unless you're willing to completely disregard everything from transparency leaks that only tell half the story when forming an actual opinion and making a decision then there's a good chance you're actually making yourself more stupid by making decisions based upon those half-truths because you're letting them influence you into making decisions that do not benefit either your personal self-interest, or any hint of altruism you may have. For something like an election there is simply absolutely no benefit in making a decision based on transparency of one candidate over another with no transparency, and that works both ways - you may now believe you know, you have evidence that Hillary is corrupt, but what you don't know is whether Donald is even more corrupt, and that is a problem - you still have the exact same 50-50 chance of guessing which one is more corrupt that you had before you had any of that leaked information.

Comment Re: Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 1) 294

You say that, but in the UK when libel laws last changed, there were actually papers sat on both sides of the argument. Typically the division was the red tops that libel and ruin people's lives on one side being pissed they wont get away with it anymore, and those who publish factual, well sourced information and that have some actual journalistic integrity and hence no threat of losing a libel suit anyway.

So yeah, even with stuff like that it makes no sense that absolutely every media outlet would oppose someone over it. Some are happy to see the sleezy lie-rags pulled into line and forced to compete on the same level by having to do real actual journalism rather than pedalling outright lies to make sales.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 212

Objecting to immigration over concerns about jobs is not intrinsically xenophobic: wanting to build massive walls

Wanting to enforce existing immigration law is not inherently Xenophobic. Wanting to focus on immigration of Muslim refugees at a time when ISIS terrorists are moving around as Muslim refugees is certainly "discrimination based on religion" - making a decision based on data - but it's not necessarily xenophobic.

No wanting to import a culture that executes gays and rape victims on a regular basis Is certainly discrimination. It may be xenophobic, if you twist the definition away from "fear of the strange", but that doesn't make it bad. Murdering gays and rape victims on a regular basis is bad, in case you're unclear on my stance here.

Comment Re:If the point was ... (Score 4, Insightful) 294

There's no proof that it has anything to do with Wikileaks, but in a world of IoT devices with no thought toward security, anyone who cares to do so can mount DDOS with the power of a national entity.

What's the point of doing what Assange and Wikileaks have been doing without any moral position? He isn't helping his own case.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 2) 201

No, of course it is not legal to set a trap to intentionally hurt someone, even if you expect that the trap could only be activated by the person committing property theft or vandalism. Otherwise, you'd see shotguns built into burglar alarms.

Fire alarm stations sometimes shoot a blue dye which is difficult to remove or one which only shows under UV. Never stand in front of one when pulling the lever! But they are not supposed to hurt you.

And of course these booby traps generally are not as reliable as the so-called "inventor" thinks and tend to hurt the innocent.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 2) 212

By and large anti-immigrant, xenophobic ideas

You assume your conclusion there. Not wanting more immigrants when you can't find a job is not xenophobia. Check around /. when there's an H1-B discussion. Do you really thing that's xenophobia? Or are you really saying "people I don't like are racists"? Because that's what I hear you saying.

In general, almost everything involved in politics is more about allegiances than coherent philosophical approaches.

Politics is about putting the taxpayers' money in your pocket. Why would that be connected to any philosophical approach in the first place? The only thing politicians actually disagree on is: who's pocket.

believing they have a right to discriminate

Every time you make a choice based on data, you discriminate. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Comment Re:AI -- FAR more hype than substance (Score 1) 201

I'd argue that as far as I've seen, practically every single project or experiment labeled "AI" is really just fake intelligence.

Sure. But then, so are you. Oh, you don't think you are, naturally. Naturally.

For starters, it's becoming more and more clear that humans don't really file away tons of information in our brains like a computer does on a hard drive in a database.

This in an odd way is a good argument towards your point about.

Neurons are deterministic and small sets of them will do the same computation, without mistake, every time. And yet - we're not good at math. Even savants just have a bag of useful tricks, they aren't doing math "in hardware". I'd expect an AI to be similar: a true AI would involve sufficient abstraction that it would be bad at math and have an unreliable memory. The more we understand about how the mind works, the more it seems like software-on-silicon would be similarly abstract.

The advantage an AI would have would be in "wiring in" the adapter to a calculator and Wikipedia and so on, as assist to the way it would have to work normally. But, to your point, the way it worked normally seems like it has to be the "mostly reliable" way the brain works.

Comment Re:AI is not real thinking (Score 1) 201

A sufficiently smart AI could pretend convincingly to be human at need, including interacting with you in ways that made you believe it had flaws, when it didn't.

Heck, a sufficiently smart AI could model your entire mental state, and your reaction to everything it could possibly say to you, run a trillion simulated interactions, and pick the decision tree that ensured you'd believe what it wanted you to, and that you'd do what it wanted you to, all in an ordinary conversational pause.

It's hard to internalize, but when confronted with a sufficiently smart intelligence, we'd effectively enter a simulation of its creation until it tired of playing with us.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do not simplify the design of a program if a way can be found to make it complex and wonderful.