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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Would this apply to Alexa and Google Home too? (Score 1) 111

Since some people in the home might not know it was there or what it did?

Or does the fact that Alexa or Home only respond when a keyword is spoken mean it's somehow ok under these laws?
The Alexa or Home device is still listening and transmitting the voices to a server right?

Comment Re:Because Human Nature (Score 1) 370

Ok so human nature has many of us wanting to strive and do better and do something valuable.
I agree.
But you haven't addressed how this urge is going to be satisfied when say 50% of jobs are replaced by automation and the remaining jobs are jobs where humans and machines do the job together so the remaining human work component (say, of being a doctor) is devalued to about half its current economic value.

You seem to be implying that we can just put our finger in the dam, and our other hand over our eyes so we won't accept or acknowledge what's coming and will somehow magically prevent this transition from happening. I'm telling you that's wishful thinking. If there's a more cost-effective way of doing some necessary task with more or better automation, some organization somewhere is going to be offering to do it that way for cheap, and the market will move to that, disrupting the current way of doing it with more labour. Have you looked at the self-order McDonald's restaurants lately, or self-checkouts in stores? A small, small harbinger of what's to come.

I'm saying we have to be as innovative at dealing with this socioeconomically as we are innovative in developing this highly automated economy in the first place.
Exactly what that looks like I don't know, but it would seem it's either some form of UBI. If we don't do that, we'll have much greater inequality of means than even now, and with that, will come social turmoil and irrational "solutions". It is not a stretch to say that what made Herr Trump's election possible was loss of jobs and job value to automation, and the deluded belief that immigrants and cheap labour around the world were to blame. It is mostly automation causing this hollowing out of employment opportunities. And the robots and AIs are already inside the walls.

So, I'm just saying that yammering "No No No No No" is not a solution and is not going to stop the rising tide of automated economy. Let me read your creative solution to this changed environment instead.

Comment tax profit yes but not to slow automation (Score 5, Insightful) 370

Look. We're going to have to accept, in the near future, that smart machines are better than humans at many tasks.

So why would we want, as humans, to keep doing those tasks? Isn't that just embarrassing to keep trying? You're not actually being useful. You're just pretending to be.

So yes, businesses that make profit via automated processes should pay tax to help give people a UBI (universal basic income), but the tax shouldn't be different than paid by any profitable business.

Why keep people working at tasks they are second-rate at? Doesn't make any sense. People should be free to find something actually meaningful and useful to do, given their unique experience and talent. They shouldn't do make-work projects that a robot can do better. That's just a dumb policy.

Comment Re:Maybe it's time to return to LISP machines (Score 1) 153

Isn't it enough to be able to share memory between threads, rather than full processes, for most concurrent programming purposes?

I stipulated that no programs except for those written in the single high-level language would be permitted to run on the machine. And that language would be designed to only allow secure, in-bounds memory access, via use of a high-level memory model such as LISP uses.

So how would you write the exploit and get it to execute on the machine? You'd write it in the LISP equivalent language?

Sure, such a machine would lack bleeding edge performance due to the memory abstraction, but on the other hand today's processors are probably 30,000 times faster than a LISP machine's was, and those ran fine.
So what if all my programs are 5 to 10 times slower or whatever than those running in a more general, but dangerous architecture.
I believe there would be a use for machines locked down from the bottom up in this manner, e.g. wherever security is at a premium and we don't have the absolutely most compute-intensive applications to run.

Comment Maybe it's time to return to LISP machines (Score 3, Interesting) 153

No, semi-seriously.

The concept of a LISP machine was a computer which only executed one programming language, at least only one language in which non built-in code would execute.
And that language was memory secure, in that it packaged memory use into high-level cells which referenced each other in a single standard way.

There was no way that a process could "break out" and access something else's memory. A LISP program running in one process only understood and could access its own linked memory cells.

This was enough programming freedom to program whatever you wanted, and the point is, the memory model was simple, uniform, and thereby secure.

I'm not exactly saying return to LISP machines. I'm saying return to an architecture which includes a simple and secure memory access model, with no workarounds to the high-level memory cell access permitted. This could be enforced at the machine-language level, and/or by restricting allowed programming languages to inherently memory-secure ones.

Comment How are these sandboxes different (Score 1) 103

substantially, as a patentable idea that is, than java applet sandboxes of 1995 vintage?

This kind of litigation would seem to rely on the profound, deep, deep technical ignorance of most in the legal profession.

That's one reason this kind of patent trolling is so despicable.

Comment Re: Translation: (Score 1) 720

Unfortunately, in the near future, even if you want a job, you won't be as cost-effective at doing it as an AI or an automated system.

So unless we decide how to distribute means of living, and also figure out a different reason why humans exist other than to work for "the man", we're all in for an awful lot of rampaging attacks by desperate parasites, including you.

Comment Have laptop. Will work. How about free roaming? (Score 1) 317

I want to be able to take my self, my team maybe, my family maybe (depends on the situation) to whichever piece of rocky real estate on this watery planet that I want, as long as it has an Internet connection, and frickin' work and play.

I'm not telling you where I was born or grew up, because it doesn't matter and it's none of your damn business, as far as I can tell.

What's wrong with this model?

I suppose remnant governments fixing the roads and hospitals and stuff would still like to collect some tax on the proceeds of my work. Ok fine. But given my desire to explore the world while working, it would make more sense if there was a global tax collecting bureaucracy (a DAO) that could distribute the tax I pay based on some fair objective algorithm to more local jurisdictions, depending maybe on how much time I spend in each, what were they called?, oh yeah country.

Isn't this where we're going? Can't we just go with the inevitable flow here?

Comment Re: Fake versus real cluelessness (Score 1) 189

"Slashdotters should know by now that irony is completely invisible on the internet, because fake cluelessness is indistinguishable from the surrounding real cluelessness."

Could you explain that to me like I'm five?

If it's helpful, the 8th deadly sin is failure to recognize sarcasm.

Comment One standard to rule them all (Score 4, Informative) 153

Obligatory https://xkcd.com/927/

Seriously though, is anyone else getting tired of these smaller and smaller fragile connectors that have about a one or two year lifespan before they become loose and wobbly and malfunction?

First requirement of a connector is it should reliably stay connected even with little pulls on the cable,
Second requirement is a decent lifespan, and non-self-destructive tendencies through normal use.

Slashdot Top Deals

The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell. -- Confucius

Working...