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:Just like China (Score 1) 419

The meaning of "progressive" is defined by the history of progressivism,

Typically meanings are "defined" by current usage, not (directly) history. You should know that.

And the reason they could get away with that and stay in business is that (1) government has limited competition and (2) government has limited the ability of customers to sue those companies.

For #1, let's take an actual example. How exactly did the gov't allow MS to become an OS near-monopoly for desktops?

Per #2, most of the customers I was paid to screw didn't even know it. You can't sue if you don't know you've been manipulated. Part of the art of manipulation is not letting the manipulated party know they've been had. (I'm not condoning it all. I just ended up in such situations.)

Further, much of it wasn't illegal, just sneaky. Most trickery is not illegal and shouldn't necessarily be illegal.

Comment Re:The few Web 1.0 Sites. (Score 1) 19

nine-times makes some excellent points.

My first thought was that Marni Walden, the executive vice president of business innovation for Verizon has no business innovation left, so is resorting to spending boatloads of money on buying stuff in a bid to gain "market share" or whatever.

This is what C level idiots do when they have no idea. Also just because Marni thinks the brand has some value (or is at least saying that in public) does not make it true, or even believable.

Comment Re:Let me know when ... (Score 1) 281

of course not, don't be a retard. Pointing out the fallacy of those posting and how the headlines etc is blatantly WRONG, does not equal support for coal. Coal needs to die the sooner the better, it is poisoning the planet and people, unfortunately the best alternative is Nuclear which while clean and relatively safe has so much stigma and misinformation associated with it that it is currently cost prohibitive in many circumstances.

I'm not so certain - then again, I am a retard as you so intelligently pointed out.

Unfortunately, I know all too many people who believe that solar and wind are liberal lies and impossible technologies, and that believe it or not, coal is being made as we write these words. That there will almost certainly never be another coal age is beyond them, but hey! I'm a retard, so what do I know.

Comment Re:Buzzword du jour (Score 2) 69

There's nothing intelligent about it. It's just fancy pattern-matching

The problem is that there is no clear-cut definition or dividing line. I've seen long online debates about this, and there are no good lines in the sand yet. All attempts failed key tests offered up, or were too subjective to evaluate well.

For one, we still don't know enough about how the human brain works such that we cannot say what distinguishes things called "AI" from something as powerful as the human brain. For all we know, the human brain is merely "fancy pattern matching" at a level of fanciness we don't understand yet.

Some call pattern-matching AI "lossy statistical analysis for the sake of speed/cost".

I suspect human brains also (typically) use abstract modelling of various sorts where symbols or some kind of ID's with attributes/links/factors are stand-in's for actual people and things to simplify certain cognitive processes. Thus, the human brain may merely be "fancy pattern matching" coordinated with "fancy modelling": statistics + modeling.

Various known AI techniques use pattern matching and others use modelling, BUT nobody has found a way to coordinate them together in a general-purpose way to reinforce each other (triangulate). It's as if we got all the key parts, but don't know how to put them together right. We don't know how to build central governors to coordinate AI "organs" for common goals.

Comment Re:Renewables will never work (Score 1) 281

So, is it time to go back to all the nay sayers who have over the past 10 years asserted this point was impossible, and say "I told you so"? Or will they just continue to assert that the numbers are all lies, and only coal can make electricity?

Truth no longer matters. You see the craziest shit put out by the deniers. Even to the point of their lack of understanding the entire power generation physics We still have people who think they are scoring points by pointing out that the sun goes down at night, so you can't use solar.

The Truth is often a troll. I've been told several times in here that solar power will never work because the sun doesn't shine at night. Dead deriously told that.

Has Slashdot been taken over by the alt-right?

Comment Re:The few Web 1.0 Sites. (Score 1) 19

To add to this I think there is a valid question of demographics as well. Advertisers want young people with disposable income for the most part. What is the average age of Yahoo!'s audience? I bet it skews older now. I mean who created yahoo mail accounts after Gmail was available without an invite?

We're told that young people don't have disposible income. While old, I have quite a bit.

Comment Re:The few Web 1.0 Sites. (Score 1) 19

Maybe I'm wrong. I know people have a good association with Yahoo Finance. Do people still use Yahoo webmail or Yahoo Messenger? Is Yahoo Answers used for purposes other than trolling? Are there other services that are popular that I've just lost track of?

I use some of the Yahoo groups. After Usenet collapsed the Yahoo groups filled in and added some file storage ability. It also offered the ability to moderate people who were assholes or got hacked for having lame passwords. That is actually a rather nice service.

Yahoo Sports is actually a professional and nice alternative to the Walt Disney version of sports, ESPN.

Now that being said, on all of the news type pages, fully half of the news links are of the Taboola clickbait variety. Completely worthless and a waste of time, and since they are placed as if they are a legit news story, you can accidentally click on them. So I don't even check the sports stories that much any more. Yahoo as it is isn't worth much.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 884

The Soviets invaded Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania before WWII. Considering their economic and military problems, this wasn't a record of peace. They took advantage of WWII to impose what they called Communism on several other countries. I think you can compare what went on in those countries with what went on in US-dominated countries. US-dominated countries were often treated well, sometimes very poorly, but it doesn't seem to compare with what the Soviets did to Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. The Soviets were at least as ruthless as the US in dealing with Third World countries.

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 1) 884

Roosevelt was slowly pushing the US into war with Germany, and was also (from 1940 on) trying to build up the US Armed Forces to be ready to fight a large war.

In September 1941, we were de facto at war with Germany in the Atlantic. We didn't do very well in this period, but we were fighting the U-boats (not sinking any, mind you, but we tried). We were unsuccessfully trying to avoid a war against Japan.

The entry of the US had some immediate bad effects for the Allies, as the desire to build up US forces for later use cut down on what we were sending to the countries actually fighting. The USAAF conducted its first European bombing raid in July 1942, using US-built bombers borrowed from the Brits. The US Army didn't get into action until November 1942 in North Africa, where it found a considerable number of shortcomings. In 1944, the US was waging war on multiple fronts, with extremely effective air power, and supplying other Allies with plenty of stuff, but the first year or so of US participation was awfully rough.

I'm not sure how things would have gone with US entry earlier. Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister for the first nine or ten months of the war, preferred to keep the US out if possible. He was succeeded by Churchill, who wanted the US in badly, completely failing to recognize that the US was not out to save the British Empire. US preparations started in earnest after the fall of France, and ten months earlier preparation would have helped to some extent.

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 1) 884

Compared to, say Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt, Hitler was a reasonably good strategist. His problem was that his generals didn't agree with him about what sort of war it was. The generals, as a group, thought that the best thing to do was to try for some sort of 1918-style peace terms - harsh, but livable. Hitler thought that losing would be the end of the German race.

Therefore, Hitler saw his generals as planning to slowly lose the war that must be won, while the generals saw Hitler as doing increasingly risky and wasteful things in pursuit of an unattainable victory. Since Hitler's generals weren't doing what he saw as necessary, he fired lots of them and started micromanaging the others.

In actual fact, they were both wrong. Germany was overrun and the government destroyed, but the German people were mostly treated sort of OK, at least in the Western occupation zones.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is one way to find out if a man is honest -- ask him. If he says "Yes" you know he is crooked. -- Groucho Marx