Slashdot does not require me to link my account to others as part of the deal. Slashdot has no interest in my physical location. Slashdot does not track me on a multitude of other websites (OK, maybe a few that have/. buttons). Slashdot allows me to remain pseudonymous and still access the full range of non-subscriber features. Slashdot allows ACs. Slashdot has content that is generally of interest to me. Nobody on Slashdot knows who I really am.
This is why I have a Slashdot account and why I have never signed up to Facebook.
Of course it's got military funding - there's more applications than I can think of, including plenty of military ones, they're probably using a malware application to attract publicity and therefore further funding sources and investors.
Take this for example - the military are currently experimenting with the Kinect as a robot-mounted device as a 3D room scanner and model builder (eg for storming an unfamiliar building). This gives them that ability in a far more compact, low-power package that can be mounted on a helmet, giving a 3D map that expands as your team move around the building, what one person sees (even if behind them) is available to the others. If they wish this can be done covertly, using a standard mobile phone, and if you want to get conspiratorial about it they could collect the same information from unsuspecting phone owners.
The voluntary crowd-sourced idea is just as impressive - with enough people using the app you could build up a very detailed 3D model of urban areas very quickly - Google Earth but in 3D. All you'd need to do is allow people to veto certain areas such as homes, most commercial areas (shops etc) would be crying out to be included.
You're quite correct, although there's a subtle distinction to be made:
"Well, on average, women are less qualified than men, and you are a woman, therefore you will be paid less." - yes, this is sexist and unjustified.
"Well, on average, women are less qualified than men, and you are a woman, therefore you are statistically likely be paid less." - this isn't necessarily unjustified. You can't pay somebody less because they are a member of group-X, although it's perfectly possible that group-X earns less on average. You can't treat an individual differently because they're in group-X, although you can make statistical guesses about that person based on that membership. I'm short, therefore I'm less likely to earn a living as a basketball player. This doesn't mean I should be rejected from a team before I've had a chance to show my abilities, short or not.
Or, you know, the 99.9% of the world that's nowhere near major cities. Greetings from the Scottish Highlands, the night sky is really quite stunning here.
England != UK. Do your research metha. Your website is clearly a scam and a phishing attempt. There you go, a free bit of SEO on a very popular site, congratulations, I'm sure that's what you intended.
Unless they're working with the ISPs to recover the address associated with the IPs. If this is simply advice being given out (in line with ISP advice anyway), and information isn't being stored or intercepted then fair enough in my book. Too many people end up in court giving it the "but I was hacked!" excuse when they had no password, or an astoundingly weak one, ignorance may be no ecuse but it's nice to see some proactive action in educating people.
Precisely. Google didn't stop him distributing it in any way, they just stopped him advertising the fact on their own systems, which (I'm guessing) have been plagued with people trying to advertise illegal torrents. Then they took a second look at their mostly-automated system and realised something had gone wrong, and corrected a false positive. For a company their size it's a realistic response. The big problem is that such a high percentage of torrents are illegal that it's giving a perfectly good and indeed useful technology - far more useful than "the cloud" whatever it is these days - distributed, multiply redundant, peer based information technology? Hell yeah! It's amazing, pity it got hijacked to the extent where legit companies are scared of it.
Re:what does that idiotic red banner mean?
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
It means you've built up enough karma and Slashdot Brownie Points to see articles "in the future", ie before most other readers. Congratulations!
Good point though, this kind of thing could be flame-bait or it could be a real effect. If the numbers match up and females consistently score lower on exams and problem solving then it may not be a sexist bias so much as a failing in the educational method or testing techniques - or it could (shock!) simply be that statistically women aren't as good at science (as currently practised and measured) as men - you'd probably find a similar statistical bias in tall/short people. (See also breast feeding - a small proportion of men can do it, but statistically women are better at it - sexist or simply biology?)
On the other hand, women tend to be better at managing groups of people, negotiation and communication (as currently practised and measured), skills which are not only valuable but a consistent problem in science. Swings and roundabouts, it should all even out in the end.
Which is why the pay disparity is the major cause for concern here. Pick any two scientists - one will be better than another at X, and vice versa for Y, but if they're doing much the same job they should be on much the same pay.
Zombies. Seriously, zombies. A few simple rules like "if a zombie catches you there is a 60% chance you will be infected, 20% chance you will be eaten, and a 20% chance you will escape" and you've suddenly got some equations that work nicely, and can be graphed to show different "what if?" zombie survival scenarios. Then you show them the tedious painting-a-house example to show how it can be used in different applications, but make sure there are zombies in the first bit they learn.
Brilliant, this is what I love about Slashdot, I can be the biggest geek in whatever field I pick and I will still get outgeeked! I enjoyed reading the comments above mostly because I have absolutely no idea what the detail is, and I'd never even realised that hand-drawn vs machine was a issue.
Can anyone supply a concise explanation of the differences and how it's all done? I'm guessing we're talking about people drawing circuits on acetate or similar and then it's scaled down photo-style to produce a mask for the actual chip?
Yes, I know I can just Google it, and I will, but as the question came up here I thought I'd add something to a real conversation, it beats a pointless click of some vague "like" button any day:)
Yeah, the Western 1% are the important ones, the worldwide 1%, well, they're really poor, they don't count. Oh, and I'm being ripped off if I buy anything that's not at the lowest price, so if companies aren't using cheap Eastern labour then it's blatant profiteering.
However, it appears you may have problems suing a religion in a different country. You may well find that suggesting to YouTube/Google that they are complicit and therefore liable to a lawsuit, and far easier to get at. You might find they just remove the video, it might well be part of their normal dispute process:
1: Complaint received from X, video removed.
2: Legally binding statement made by Y, video reinstated.
3: X responds saying he has proof of Y making an untrue statement, and legal action will be taken. Video removed again.
Google are still breaking laws by transmitting copyright material, and they make an effort to avoid hassle. And the best scenario is that the religion have to distribute "their" video on their own, at which point you start the multiple download project and destroy their bandwidth fund....
Assuming that the ads are as open source as the rest of the installation then there's a better idea - I suspect Amazon are suddenly going to find a lot of two-year-old Hungarian speaking Inuit who are interested in crochet masters from C17th Solomon Islands in their user base.
A similar thing has already happened in the UK. Professor David Nutt was an advisor to the government on drugs policy. He criticised the reclassification of cannabis from class C (which includes prescription drugs) to class B (a more strictly controlled class with harsher penalties for possession and dealing). The government didn't like his views, so he was fired.
Just to reiterate: government hires acknowledged expert on drugs. Expert gives advise as requested. Advice does not match government policy, so the expert is fired.
40 years ago we could produce large amounts of fusion energy, just not in a particularly controlled manner.
20 years ago we could produce controlled energy from fusion, but it required a bigger input than output, and only lasted for milliseconds.
Now we can produce controlled energy from fusion, at ratios a little greater than unity, for tens of seconds.
~20 years from now (timetabled for 2035) we will hopefully have a proof-of-concept commercial fusion reactor feeding electricity into the grids.
There's an element of truth in the "power of the future, and always will be!" gag, and it has been a very long hard slog, but advances are being made, albeit slowly compared to the development of fission energy production. That said, the first steam engine was made in ancient Greece, but didn't become a large scale commercial venture until the industrial revolution, and compared to that fusion research has happened in the blink of an eye.
Unless, of course, they've realised that G+ is suffering because of the real-name policy (which is why I won't use it despite being a fairly heavy user of other Google services) and this is a patent on a method of preserving anonymity amongst the online user-base while still allowing Google to mine your data and (securely) connecting it with a real life identity. Google ID card anyone?
Interesting, I wasn't aware of most of that. The whisper mode is particularly interesting, I've heard exactly what you describe, next time I'll be able to ask to speak to the supervisor and demand to know why they're distracting the person who's actually doing the customer service and then put in a complaint to whichever company has hired the call-center.
If there anything I hate, it's companies who screw over "the customer" just to meet some internal target.
Or simply time to get everybody to constantly hit the "Bathroom" button. When management realise that every cubicle is occupied by an average of 17 workers every minute of the working day and work is still getting done, they'll realise it's pointless. A virtual dirty protest if you will.
Precisely. If I stand up in a crowded NY subway train and shout "Allahu Akbar" then there's a very good chance somebody will get hurt, either in ensuing gunfire or panic in a crowded place. I should be held responsible for that, it's entirely foreseeable and predictable.
The real offence here is the twisting and abuse of the original meaning of the free speech laws in the US. It was an innovative and brave law to pass in a fledgling country, and had some very specific reasoning behind it. This is now being abused by people who are showing no understanding of the intention behind it and behaving like spoiled children who believe they are in some way "special".
Free speech only works where people have to take personal responsibility for using it.
We've arguably got it already. Mobile phones "augmenting" pub quiz teams are a big problem.
I did wonder about speech, but if you're simply playing back the neural activity that generates "hello" then you have to tell the device to do it, and giving the command "say(hello)" might as well lead to a speech synthesizer. Walking, however, is a repetitive activity that could be controlled by this for minutes or hours with one command.
No, but I'd imagine this might have applications in people who have suffered brain injuries. It sounds like they can essentially use some kind of resonance effect, so if this can be replicated for people who can physically walk but can "no longer remember how" then it's potentially useful. However, if they're simply playing back a pre-recorded action then there is limited application, it's not going to revive lost speech centers for example, and extensive physiotherapy which helps to develop new pathways to pick up from lost ones is arguably a better long-term solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiosity, can you pay taxes with gold, oil or stamps, or is it USD only?
Slashdot does not require me to link my account to others as part of the deal. Slashdot has no interest in my physical location. Slashdot does not track me on a multitude of other websites (OK, maybe a few that have /. buttons). Slashdot allows me to remain pseudonymous and still access the full range of non-subscriber features. Slashdot allows ACs. Slashdot has content that is generally of interest to me. Nobody on Slashdot knows who I really am.
This is why I have a Slashdot account and why I have never signed up to Facebook.
Of course it's got military funding - there's more applications than I can think of, including plenty of military ones, they're probably using a malware application to attract publicity and therefore further funding sources and investors.
Take this for example - the military are currently experimenting with the Kinect as a robot-mounted device as a 3D room scanner and model builder (eg for storming an unfamiliar building). This gives them that ability in a far more compact, low-power package that can be mounted on a helmet, giving a 3D map that expands as your team move around the building, what one person sees (even if behind them) is available to the others. If they wish this can be done covertly, using a standard mobile phone, and if you want to get conspiratorial about it they could collect the same information from unsuspecting phone owners.
The voluntary crowd-sourced idea is just as impressive - with enough people using the app you could build up a very detailed 3D model of urban areas very quickly - Google Earth but in 3D. All you'd need to do is allow people to veto certain areas such as homes, most commercial areas (shops etc) would be crying out to be included.
You're quite correct, although there's a subtle distinction to be made:
"Well, on average, women are less qualified than men, and you are a woman, therefore you will be paid less." - yes, this is sexist and unjustified.
"Well, on average, women are less qualified than men, and you are a woman, therefore you are statistically likely be paid less." - this isn't necessarily unjustified. You can't pay somebody less because they are a member of group-X, although it's perfectly possible that group-X earns less on average. You can't treat an individual differently because they're in group-X, although you can make statistical guesses about that person based on that membership. I'm short, therefore I'm less likely to earn a living as a basketball player. This doesn't mean I should be rejected from a team before I've had a chance to show my abilities, short or not.
Or, you know, the 99.9% of the world that's nowhere near major cities. Greetings from the Scottish Highlands, the night sky is really quite stunning here.
England != UK. Do your research metha. Your website is clearly a scam and a phishing attempt. There you go, a free bit of SEO on a very popular site, congratulations, I'm sure that's what you intended.
Unless they're working with the ISPs to recover the address associated with the IPs. If this is simply advice being given out (in line with ISP advice anyway), and information isn't being stored or intercepted then fair enough in my book. Too many people end up in court giving it the "but I was hacked!" excuse when they had no password, or an astoundingly weak one, ignorance may be no ecuse but it's nice to see some proactive action in educating people.
Precisely. Google didn't stop him distributing it in any way, they just stopped him advertising the fact on their own systems, which (I'm guessing) have been plagued with people trying to advertise illegal torrents. Then they took a second look at their mostly-automated system and realised something had gone wrong, and corrected a false positive. For a company their size it's a realistic response. The big problem is that such a high percentage of torrents are illegal that it's giving a perfectly good and indeed useful technology - far more useful than "the cloud" whatever it is these days - distributed, multiply redundant, peer based information technology? Hell yeah! It's amazing, pity it got hijacked to the extent where legit companies are scared of it.
It means you've built up enough karma and Slashdot Brownie Points to see articles "in the future", ie before most other readers. Congratulations!
Good point though, this kind of thing could be flame-bait or it could be a real effect. If the numbers match up and females consistently score lower on exams and problem solving then it may not be a sexist bias so much as a failing in the educational method or testing techniques - or it could (shock!) simply be that statistically women aren't as good at science (as currently practised and measured) as men - you'd probably find a similar statistical bias in tall/short people. (See also breast feeding - a small proportion of men can do it, but statistically women are better at it - sexist or simply biology?)
On the other hand, women tend to be better at managing groups of people, negotiation and communication (as currently practised and measured), skills which are not only valuable but a consistent problem in science. Swings and roundabouts, it should all even out in the end.
Which is why the pay disparity is the major cause for concern here. Pick any two scientists - one will be better than another at X, and vice versa for Y, but if they're doing much the same job they should be on much the same pay.
Zombies. Seriously, zombies. A few simple rules like "if a zombie catches you there is a 60% chance you will be infected, 20% chance you will be eaten, and a 20% chance you will escape" and you've suddenly got some equations that work nicely, and can be graphed to show different "what if?" zombie survival scenarios. Then you show them the tedious painting-a-house example to show how it can be used in different applications, but make sure there are zombies in the first bit they learn.
Brilliant, this is what I love about Slashdot, I can be the biggest geek in whatever field I pick and I will still get outgeeked! I enjoyed reading the comments above mostly because I have absolutely no idea what the detail is, and I'd never even realised that hand-drawn vs machine was a issue.
:)
Can anyone supply a concise explanation of the differences and how it's all done? I'm guessing we're talking about people drawing circuits on acetate or similar and then it's scaled down photo-style to produce a mask for the actual chip?
Yes, I know I can just Google it, and I will, but as the question came up here I thought I'd add something to a real conversation, it beats a pointless click of some vague "like" button any day
Yeah, the Western 1% are the important ones, the worldwide 1%, well, they're really poor, they don't count. Oh, and I'm being ripped off if I buy anything that's not at the lowest price, so if companies aren't using cheap Eastern labour then it's blatant profiteering.
However, it appears you may have problems suing a religion in a different country. You may well find that suggesting to YouTube/Google that they are complicit and therefore liable to a lawsuit, and far easier to get at. You might find they just remove the video, it might well be part of their normal dispute process:
1: Complaint received from X, video removed.
2: Legally binding statement made by Y, video reinstated.
3: X responds saying he has proof of Y making an untrue statement, and legal action will be taken. Video removed again.
Google are still breaking laws by transmitting copyright material, and they make an effort to avoid hassle. And the best scenario is that the religion have to distribute "their" video on their own, at which point you start the multiple download project and destroy their bandwidth fund....
OSX is UNIX. It has a certificate to say so and everything.
You do realise UNIX was written by people who are now mostly grandparents? Hell, Torvalds is old enough to be a grandparent.
Assuming that the ads are as open source as the rest of the installation then there's a better idea - I suspect Amazon are suddenly going to find a lot of two-year-old Hungarian speaking Inuit who are interested in crochet masters from C17th Solomon Islands in their user base.
A similar thing has already happened in the UK. Professor David Nutt was an advisor to the government on drugs policy. He criticised the reclassification of cannabis from class C (which includes prescription drugs) to class B (a more strictly controlled class with harsher penalties for possession and dealing). The government didn't like his views, so he was fired.
Just to reiterate: government hires acknowledged expert on drugs. Expert gives advise as requested. Advice does not match government policy, so the expert is fired.
40 years ago we could produce large amounts of fusion energy, just not in a particularly controlled manner.
20 years ago we could produce controlled energy from fusion, but it required a bigger input than output, and only lasted for milliseconds.
Now we can produce controlled energy from fusion, at ratios a little greater than unity, for tens of seconds.
~20 years from now (timetabled for 2035) we will hopefully have a proof-of-concept commercial fusion reactor feeding electricity into the grids.
There's an element of truth in the "power of the future, and always will be!" gag, and it has been a very long hard slog, but advances are being made, albeit slowly compared to the development of fission energy production. That said, the first steam engine was made in ancient Greece, but didn't become a large scale commercial venture until the industrial revolution, and compared to that fusion research has happened in the blink of an eye.
Unless, of course, they've realised that G+ is suffering because of the real-name policy (which is why I won't use it despite being a fairly heavy user of other Google services) and this is a patent on a method of preserving anonymity amongst the online user-base while still allowing Google to mine your data and (securely) connecting it with a real life identity. Google ID card anyone?
Interesting, I wasn't aware of most of that. The whisper mode is particularly interesting, I've heard exactly what you describe, next time I'll be able to ask to speak to the supervisor and demand to know why they're distracting the person who's actually doing the customer service and then put in a complaint to whichever company has hired the call-center.
If there anything I hate, it's companies who screw over "the customer" just to meet some internal target.
Or simply time to get everybody to constantly hit the "Bathroom" button. When management realise that every cubicle is occupied by an average of 17 workers every minute of the working day and work is still getting done, they'll realise it's pointless. A virtual dirty protest if you will.
Precisely. If I stand up in a crowded NY subway train and shout "Allahu Akbar" then there's a very good chance somebody will get hurt, either in ensuing gunfire or panic in a crowded place. I should be held responsible for that, it's entirely foreseeable and predictable.
The real offence here is the twisting and abuse of the original meaning of the free speech laws in the US. It was an innovative and brave law to pass in a fledgling country, and had some very specific reasoning behind it. This is now being abused by people who are showing no understanding of the intention behind it and behaving like spoiled children who believe they are in some way "special".
Free speech only works where people have to take personal responsibility for using it.
OK, I'll give it a go:
I heard in the latest beat-em-up Jim Parsons (Big Bang Theory) is going to fight the A-Team's BA. Zynga.
We've arguably got it already. Mobile phones "augmenting" pub quiz teams are a big problem.
I did wonder about speech, but if you're simply playing back the neural activity that generates "hello" then you have to tell the device to do it, and giving the command "say(hello)" might as well lead to a speech synthesizer. Walking, however, is a repetitive activity that could be controlled by this for minutes or hours with one command.
No, but I'd imagine this might have applications in people who have suffered brain injuries. It sounds like they can essentially use some kind of resonance effect, so if this can be replicated for people who can physically walk but can "no longer remember how" then it's potentially useful. However, if they're simply playing back a pre-recorded action then there is limited application, it's not going to revive lost speech centers for example, and extensive physiotherapy which helps to develop new pathways to pick up from lost ones is arguably a better long-term solution.