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: Elect Trump for Honest Government (Score 1) 502

We also have a legislature which is supposed to be much more representative. It's easier to move congressional districts. If you have a more diverse legislature, you will end up with more diverse presidential options. Plus we have the primary system. It's really just this defeatist attitude that keeps the two party system alive in a society with this much access to information and cheap outreach to constituencies.

Comment Re:So what happens..... (Score 1) 101

It does bring up an interesting point of how people will change their behavior when they know the person driving a car can't just run them over if they block the car. I live in a city where the good parts and the "bad" parts aren't separated by very much distance. If I'm driving from home to work I have to drive by several homeless people. Being at a stop light and having a guy stand in front of my car while another guy tries to shake me down would be very uncomfortable.

I'm not really that worried it would happen, but we also don't know how people will adapt to that. I imagine in the beginning it would take the form of pedestrians being impolite once they know they can walk in front of a car at an intersection and it'll stop. I already experience slow moving pedestrians entering a crosswalk at the tail-end of a stoplight's cycle once or twice a month. That type of person might become more bold in their behavior. The overly aggressive homeless person that won't take the first few "no"s might also become more bold.

Comment Re: Does anybody really doubt it (Score 1) 705

It would be interesting if a serial killer was following the Clinton's around committing all these murders. I hope that kind of stuff does happen. I mean, in the sense that the people are either dead by serial killer or dead by the official explanation, not in the "I wish there was more murder going on" way.

Comment Re:HoloLens vs Vive?! (Score 1) 53

I agree that it's an impressive piece of technology. Sticking with the microwave analogy, I'd say that we're way past noticing chocolate melt near RADAR but not yet at a counter-top microwave. We're sitting somewhere close to a 6 foot tall, 750lb microwave (which incidentally cost around $3000). I love easy mac, and one day, we will have it. My point is just that easy mac provides a different take on dinner than... uh... I don't know, this metaphor is really falling apart... Corn? Is that right? Is that the VR equivalent? I have a reference sheet somewhere for this...

Comment Re:HoloLens vs Vive?! (Score 4, Insightful) 53

I agree $3000 is really steep, especially for the product. It's rather disappointing so far. The field of view just isn't there. However, the implication that VR is somehow greater than AR I strongly disagree with. I think AR is a much harder problem to solve and has really great potential applications. I think people are ready to start moving away from their all-digital worlds and in to something grounded in the physical world a little more. People don't like having their phone in their face all day, or staring at a computer screen all day. There just isn't a better way to get the information they want at the time they want it. VR (so far) is just further isolation from your physical world by moving your body in to the digital world, whereas AR is bringing your digital world out in to the physical world.

Comment Re:Who cares..?? (Score 1) 704

I'd say voting for the person that most closely aligns with your positions is not being a petulant child. Voting against somebody is closer to it, but decent short-term strategy. Let's put this problem of ultra-conservative justices where it really lies, at Earl Warren's feet. Without a massively powerful, activist Supreme Court, it wouldn't be that big of a deal to have conservative or liberal justices. Now, things get really complicated. When people have their guy in whatever office, they want that office to do what they want and grow their power. We've seen the legislature get weaker and the executive and judicial branches get much much stronger since the country was formed.

There are many, many more people in the legislature and it being more granular is a better representation of the people than the one or 7 members of the other branches. How did the legislature get so weak? I think it's because of people voting against the other guy instead of voting with the person that most closely aligns with their beliefs. We fall in to a two party system that naturally divides the population in half. That is it's either this guy or the guy most likely to beat this guy. The parties will always teeter around that equilibrium. People only want to give up as much as they have to to get what they want and by this process the 2 parties will always seek towards a 50/50 split of the voters.

I think everybody has a threshold for how many votes a candidate is likely to receive before voting for them. Anything less than that is throwing the vote away. When you disparage 3rd party voters, you lower the number of votes that go to 3rd party candidates and raise the number of votes for the two party system. This is then fed back in to the system so next time an election comes around it's evidence that nobody votes for 3rd parties.

So how do we get out of this? There are lots of complicated systemic ways to address the problem, but the most direct way is to support a legislature that will reign in the executive and judicial branches to lessen the sting of losing the monolithic executive branch to the guy you don't like, then start voting for the person in your legislature that you think will do the best job. This will destroy the two party system and provide more choices. Actually, I think these things are the same thing, just there is a two step process we need to go through. Step one is get the government back under control, step two is use the government to achieve progress. Actually, there is a third step too. Think long term and don't opt for the quick progress that weakens the whole system.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 4, Insightful) 174

Not exactly. You can buy your way out of needing to visit the PokeStops to get more pokeballs and other items you need. You can either drop $10 or hang out in a coffee shop that's close to a pokestop for an hour. That's actually what I really enjoy about the temporary cultural fixation on it. It feels like the first truly social game, not play alone with strangers in the basement.

Comment Re:Popular for the moment (Score 4, Interesting) 174

I do agree it will drop of dramatically in about 5 days. But, to improve longevity you continually release new features until you've turned it in to a AR version of the core games in the series. Trading comes first, new pokemon according to "season" comes next, revamped combat, etc. and you can keep a respectable community for the game. I mean, WoW has always been extremely repetitive but did and does very well. It's just not a cultural phenomenon.

Comment Re: Good solution (Score 1) 983

In general I agree with you. In this specific case, I don't think the police did anything wrong. If the point is that they shouldn't have explosives of this type (I'm not sure of the nature of the "bomb"), I think there is at least some common ground between us. However, I don't think this is a good example of why they shouldn't.

I think drug raids, non-violent situations, situations without an imminent threat or situations where they are forcing imminent threats are better examples. I don't know if not allowing them access is the right solution, but it is past time to revisit how we police and what acts are punishable at a professional level and what acts are punishable as criminal offenses. At the very least it should be a criminal act to use a remote controlled bomb on somebody that isn't an imminent threat, and I'd say it should be criminal to knowingly put somebody who isn't a threat in to a situation that makes them one.

For example, it should be criminal to roll one of these remote controlled bombs in to somebody's house while they're sleeping because it's very likely that when they wake up and see there is a bomb there, they will instinctively act to preserve their life and sometimes instincts make dumb decisions like "I'm going to grab my gun and run out of the house waving it around before I get blown up". This would also cover situations where you storm in to a drug house with guns up, because if anybody did that but police it'd be legal to kill them, and confusion and panic can cause you not to think before shooting. Police officers with training and every day experience in going in to dangerous situations make bad calls all the time in those types of situations. The whole situation should never come up at all.

It may turn out that the cops can't handle weapons like this bomb, but I don't think this is a good situation to make that point; as I interpret that facts, he was an imminent threat. If we want to argue that point, I think that's a different argument and one that isn't likely to change anybody's mind.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 983

When you're claiming you've got bombs all over the city and he's saying he's going to hurt more people what are you supposed to do? Wait him out? Wait for him to come out and start shooting again? Come the fuck on that's ridiculous. Once you've proven you're a cop killer, saying you want to kill more cops, not surrendering when you're clearly cornered, you are saying "I'm going to go down swinging". You're not about to sit there and wait till you get hungry then say "hey can I have some food?" You're going to wait until you're bored, calculating the best way to hurt more people, then acting on it. Why give him the chance?

Comment Re:Good solution (Score 5, Insightful) 983

The problem is that it's difficult to contain somebody who decides they are willing to die, which is obviously what this guy was willing to do when negotiations broke down. He'd proven he would and could kill. He wounded an officer in their shootout. So what do you do to contain him in a way that doesn't cost more lives? While police have given some of their life to their cause, their lives matter some amount greater than zero. This guys life was worth exactly nothing, he forfeited it. At any point he could've done any number of things. Using a gun to shoot him vs. using a remote controlled bomb is an arbitrary distinction.

This isn't an escalation. What is the difference between this and a sniper taking somebody out? The decision to kill from safety is the same in both cases.

Slashdot Top Deals

Due to lack of disk space, this fortune database has been discontinued.