I don't know if it actually happened, but there was encouragement by some democratic activists to participate in open GOP primaries to ensure DT was the candidate due to his weakness as a candidate (IIRC, RMV, YMMV). I, personally don't have a problem with that, because open primaries are stupid to begin with.
Nothing to stop someone registering with a party they dislike to try impact the primary of a rival. My own personal opinion is that George Washington was correct in his assessment that political parties are a bad thing for democracy and that they should be avoided.
I would rather see a situation where there are no party primaries (at least no primaries that receive government money. Most states only fund the top two parties which encourages the ridiculous two-pole scenario we have today). If private parties want to fund and arrange their own primaries, I guess can't stop them and reluctantly could agree with that.
I'd like to see a Presidential election where the Presidential candidates don't officially represent ANY party. There are two rounds of voting. First round everyone votes for whoever they think is the best candidate. The top two candidates then run against each other a month later in a second election where the only choices are one of those two candidates.
I'm an independent. In general I hate both leading parties.
That said, I particular didn't like Ted Cruz, who looked likely to win the nomination at one point. I considered registering as a republican and voting in my state's primary FOR Trump thinking America wouldn't be so stupid to elect Trump if he beat Cruz to the nomination. My feeling that Hillary, as horrible as she would be, couldn't possibly be as bad as Cruz. (Kasich and Lessig looked the least worst from each party to me).
In hindsight, I'm glad I didn't, so I can't consider myself in anyway responsible for that abomination coming to power. However, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if many independants and democrats did vote for Trump in the primary thinking he couldn't possibly win. Head to head against Hillary he fared worse than any other candidate in the Republican field against Hillary, he would be the democrats obvious pick who they would rather face.
I'm not saying hacking did occur, but districts with electronic voting machines voted consistently higher for Donald Trump in swing states compared with paper ballots in the same states. If only the paper ballot votes were counted in the swing states, Hillary would have won.
This could be coincidence, pure statistical noise, or correlated with some other factor that makes both the above true. We'll probably never know. It seems unlikely someone would be able to hack so many machines without anyone finding out.
However, Trump kept saying the election was rigged, maybe he was right.
They're a military power, a nuclear power and a regional power, but they lack the ability to truly impact global politics (other than by influencing foreign elections to elect their puppets).
Financially, they're not in the top 10. Militarily, yes, they can fire missiles at you, but they're only able to directly invade or occupy their immediate neighbours.
Their navy is nothing impressive. For example they only have 1 Aircraft carrier, less than Australia, Egypt, France, Italy, Japan, and the US. No greater than Brazil, China, India, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, and the UK.
So whereas their military threat poses a menace to their immediate neighbours, and their nuclear arsenal is 2nd to none, in a conventional battle they can only worry their immediate neighbours; Eastern Europe, Asia.
Their brazenness comes down to their nuclear arsenal. Something they can't use without major repercussions. And whereas their land and air forces may be quite strong, they're not world-beaters, and in any long drawn war, Russia would lack the capital to maintain a big war or create the industry needed to sustain one. Russia is easily neutralized by stopping oil trade.
Take away Russia's nukes and they wouldn't be a significant threat.
You unfriend any nation state from your nation's facebook page if they break the convention? The regular Geneva Convention is hard enough to enforce, a digital one will be even harder because it's harder to prove an actor is really from a location or nation. Even if an assailant traced back to Russia is caught breaking the convention online and Russia "fails to catch" the person responsible they can claim he was a Ukrainian acting on behalf of Ukraine from within their borders.
Even the regular Geneva Convention isn't really respected anymore. You've got the US brazenly violating it in Gitmo. Iraqi troops during the gulf war were violating it. No-one really takes it seriously anymore.
Just because they're not showing ads in your e-mail inbox doesn't necessarily mean they're not data-mining you to use information collected about you from your e-mail inbox.
For example, contents of your e-mail in gmail might be used to target ads against you outside of gmail as your browse the web. I don't use Outlook today, but the ads in Gmail are very minimal, such that, I don't notice them. However, I do notice that ads in my web browser have come from things triggered by e-mails I receive.
I'd pay to get rid of having data from my e-mails saved to target ads to me- actual ads in my e-mail provider though is almost nothing and not worth paying to get rid of. It's not the ads I mind- it's the fact they're data-mining my e-mail in the first place.
Yeah, I know at least 10 lasers off the top of my head, be it optical drives, cat toys, and a flashlight with a built in laser. I'm sure there are others I've forgot.
One more press release about a laboratory demonstration with an undefined time to market. Just about zero technical details, why did I click on it? Haven't we had enough of this stuff, Slashdot?
No, I find it fascinating to be ahead of the curve on learning about this and other "maybe" technologies. I remember hearing about DVDs years before they hit the market and thinking "oh cool". The thing is, you have to accept a low % of these cool techs ever make it.
Presumably a water battery would be too bulky for a car. Even if battery used for powering car, the battery wouldn't be in the cabin so wouldn't be exposed to that heat. If battery was in engine block it could even have it's own fans, or liquid cooling to stay cool.
That is why... I want to emigrate to New Zealand to get away from Trump instead of Canada like the everyone else. That and maple syrup, of which, even the smell of it makes me gag.
Bubble? What bubble, my house is still worth 20% less than when I bought it 10 years ago. There is no bubble, and that's why people aren't moving. They owe too much on their house from last time the bubble burst. If selling your house means you have to pay the bank money to close out the mortgage, you're probably not going to move.
People make these comments everytime AI is brought up.
No, if you consider AI to be true sapient machine understanding, AI does not exist nor will it exist any time in the near future.
If you're being more liberal with the term and understanding AI as something that can understand vague inputs and can interpret meaning and be somewhat flexible in how it responds... AI has been around for a while. There are multiple "public definitions" and you're simply not going to get a consensus.
There was a time that were you to say you had "intercourse" with a woman people would assume you meant you had a chat, and if you said you "conversed" with her they would assume you had sex with her.
(voice isn't precise enough, typing is cumbersome)
TODAY voice isn't precise enough. Give it 10 years and it will be a lot more accurate. Look how far voice recognition has come in the last 10 years. Millions of people giving Amazon data, talking to Alexa, the process will improve a lot.
Eventually, yes, human/machine merging will be beneficial. We're just not there yet. Maybe it will be fitting us with "memory" to help us store and remember our experiences better. I think we can all see how it might help to be able to "rewind in our mind to last Tuesday night".
As we live longer lives, if we have technology to increase our lifespan dramatically before we wipe ourselves out, there is a real benefit to a longer-lasting brain with more storage and longevity of usefulness.
More powerful limbs could be useful, or being able to integrate with tools by just thinking.
Of course, the problem is, if we do get that far (and we're not talking in 20 years- this is far future) when do we cease to be human anymore?
And even then the natives came from somewhere else first. Following this logic unless you're African living in Africa (could even narrow this down to South Africa) you're an immigrant.
The Native Americas in North America have been in North America longer than the ancestors of almost everyone living in South Africa. The white South Africans are obviously of European descent from the last handful of centuries, but also most of the black South Africans are descended from people that arrived in the region at various times over the last few millennia.
Native Americans have been in the Americas at least 13,000 years.
Or more likely there is only so much room to fit people in the Bay Area.
Can always cram more people in. Manilla has a population density per sq km of: 41,515 people.
San Francisco itself has a population density of 6,659 (I imagine the combined Bay area will be a little lower than that) So you should be able to cram at least 30million more people into the Bay Area if you try).
You could create a lot of SnapChat clones with 30million programmers.
Wikipedia is really pretty amazing. Of course, we all know that; but, it's worth reflecting that, on a public platform, that most people can edit to a degree- it's not more chaos than it is. Maybe I've just not been to the right (or wrong) pages, but there is way less graffiti than one would have expected.
If you had told me in the 80's that something like Wikipedia would exist and be as good as it is, I would have laughed in your face and called you a pee-pee face. (I was a kid in the 80's).
Why do people think that having a recognizable user name makes them right?
Basic psychology. If you have a name you associate with, you're more likely to care (although not necessarily) what others think. It does seem to work.
If you look at the average "named" post and the average "ac" post- the average named post is of a higher quality and usually less controversial. That's not to say there aren't great AC posts, there are. There are also some godawful "named" posts.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if it actually happened, but there was encouragement by some democratic activists to participate in open GOP primaries to ensure DT was the candidate due to his weakness as a candidate (IIRC, RMV, YMMV). I, personally don't have a problem with that, because open primaries are stupid to begin with.
Nothing to stop someone registering with a party they dislike to try impact the primary of a rival. My own personal opinion is that George Washington was correct in his assessment that political parties are a bad thing for democracy and that they should be avoided.
I would rather see a situation where there are no party primaries (at least no primaries that receive government money. Most states only fund the top two parties which encourages the ridiculous two-pole scenario we have today). If private parties want to fund and arrange their own primaries, I guess can't stop them and reluctantly could agree with that.
I'd like to see a Presidential election where the Presidential candidates don't officially represent ANY party. There are two rounds of voting. First round everyone votes for whoever they think is the best candidate. The top two candidates then run against each other a month later in a second election where the only choices are one of those two candidates.
I'm an independent. In general I hate both leading parties.
That said, I particular didn't like Ted Cruz, who looked likely to win the nomination at one point. I considered registering as a republican and voting in my state's primary FOR Trump thinking America wouldn't be so stupid to elect Trump if he beat Cruz to the nomination. My feeling that Hillary, as horrible as she would be, couldn't possibly be as bad as Cruz. (Kasich and Lessig looked the least worst from each party to me).
In hindsight, I'm glad I didn't, so I can't consider myself in anyway responsible for that abomination coming to power. However, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if many independants and democrats did vote for Trump in the primary thinking he couldn't possibly win. Head to head against Hillary he fared worse than any other candidate in the Republican field against Hillary, he would be the democrats obvious pick who they would rather face.
We knew almost immediately after the claim that the machines were hacked.
Sorry, I forgot, Spicer probably told us the truth about that already.
I'm not saying hacking did occur, but districts with electronic voting machines voted consistently higher for Donald Trump in swing states compared with paper ballots in the same states. If only the paper ballot votes were counted in the swing states, Hillary would have won.
This could be coincidence, pure statistical noise, or correlated with some other factor that makes both the above true. We'll probably never know. It seems unlikely someone would be able to hack so many machines without anyone finding out.
However, Trump kept saying the election was rigged, maybe he was right.
Russia isn't really a superpower any more.
They're a military power, a nuclear power and a regional power, but they lack the ability to truly impact global politics (other than by influencing foreign elections to elect their puppets).
Financially, they're not in the top 10.
Militarily, yes, they can fire missiles at you, but they're only able to directly invade or occupy their immediate neighbours.
Their navy is nothing impressive. For example they only have 1 Aircraft carrier, less than Australia, Egypt, France, Italy, Japan, and the US. No greater than Brazil, China, India, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, and the UK.
So whereas their military threat poses a menace to their immediate neighbours, and their nuclear arsenal is 2nd to none, in a conventional battle they can only worry their immediate neighbours; Eastern Europe, Asia.
Their brazenness comes down to their nuclear arsenal. Something they can't use without major repercussions. And whereas their land and air forces may be quite strong, they're not world-beaters, and in any long drawn war, Russia would lack the capital to maintain a big war or create the industry needed to sustain one. Russia is easily neutralized by stopping oil trade.
Take away Russia's nukes and they wouldn't be a significant threat.
How do you enforce a digital Geneva convention?
You unfriend any nation state from your nation's facebook page if they break the convention? The regular Geneva Convention is hard enough to enforce, a digital one will be even harder because it's harder to prove an actor is really from a location or nation. Even if an assailant traced back to Russia is caught breaking the convention online and Russia "fails to catch" the person responsible they can claim he was a Ukrainian acting on behalf of Ukraine from within their borders.
Even the regular Geneva Convention isn't really respected anymore. You've got the US brazenly violating it in Gitmo. Iraqi troops during the gulf war were violating it. No-one really takes it seriously anymore.
Just because they're not showing ads in your e-mail inbox doesn't necessarily mean they're not data-mining you to use information collected about you from your e-mail inbox.
For example, contents of your e-mail in gmail might be used to target ads against you outside of gmail as your browse the web. I don't use Outlook today, but the ads in Gmail are very minimal, such that, I don't notice them. However, I do notice that ads in my web browser have come from things triggered by e-mails I receive.
I'd pay to get rid of having data from my e-mails saved to target ads to me- actual ads in my e-mail provider though is almost nothing and not worth paying to get rid of. It's not the ads I mind- it's the fact they're data-mining my e-mail in the first place.
Yeah, I know at least 10 lasers off the top of my head, be it optical drives, cat toys, and a flashlight with a built in laser. I'm sure there are others I've forgot.
Yes, but Apple uses Lithium Ion batteries so that would be cheating.
One more press release about a laboratory demonstration with an undefined time to market.
Just about zero technical details, why did I click on it?
Haven't we had enough of this stuff, Slashdot?
No, I find it fascinating to be ahead of the curve on learning about this and other "maybe" technologies. I remember hearing about DVDs years before they hit the market and thinking "oh cool". The thing is, you have to accept a low % of these cool techs ever make it.
Presumably a water battery would be too bulky for a car. Even if battery used for powering car, the battery wouldn't be in the cabin so wouldn't be exposed to that heat. If battery was in engine block it could even have it's own fans, or liquid cooling to stay cool.
That is why... I want to emigrate to New Zealand to get away from Trump instead of Canada like the everyone else. That and maple syrup, of which, even the smell of it makes me gag.
No, the problem with voice TODAY isn't accuracy (it's already pretty damn accurate, more than humans)
Try having an accent other than American.
This article joyfully translated from the speech of Mandarin.
Bubble? What bubble, my house is still worth 20% less than when I bought it 10 years ago. There is no bubble, and that's why people aren't moving. They owe too much on their house from last time the bubble burst. If selling your house means you have to pay the bank money to close out the mortgage, you're probably not going to move.
People make these comments everytime AI is brought up.
No, if you consider AI to be true sapient machine understanding, AI does not exist nor will it exist any time in the near future.
If you're being more liberal with the term and understanding AI as something that can understand vague inputs and can interpret meaning and be somewhat flexible in how it responds... AI has been around for a while. There are multiple "public definitions" and you're simply not going to get a consensus.
There was a time that were you to say you had "intercourse" with a woman people would assume you meant you had a chat, and if you said you "conversed" with her they would assume you had sex with her.
(voice isn't precise enough, typing is cumbersome)
TODAY voice isn't precise enough. Give it 10 years and it will be a lot more accurate. Look how far voice recognition has come in the last 10 years. Millions of people giving Amazon data, talking to Alexa, the process will improve a lot.
First they wanted to give us chip implants to track us for satan's army, now they want to give us robotic endoskeletons? WHAT NEXT MUSK!?
They could always give us wheels and allow us to plug ourselves into the wall to charge before driving around.
Eventually, yes, human/machine merging will be beneficial. We're just not there yet. Maybe it will be fitting us with "memory" to help us store and remember our experiences better. I think we can all see how it might help to be able to "rewind in our mind to last Tuesday night".
As we live longer lives, if we have technology to increase our lifespan dramatically before we wipe ourselves out, there is a real benefit to a longer-lasting brain with more storage and longevity of usefulness.
More powerful limbs could be useful, or being able to integrate with tools by just thinking.
Of course, the problem is, if we do get that far (and we're not talking in 20 years- this is far future) when do we cease to be human anymore?
And even then the natives came from somewhere else first. Following this logic unless you're African living in Africa (could even narrow this down to South Africa) you're an immigrant.
The Native Americas in North America have been in North America longer than the ancestors of almost everyone living in South Africa. The white South Africans are obviously of European descent from the last handful of centuries, but also most of the black South Africans are descended from people that arrived in the region at various times over the last few millennia.
Native Americans have been in the Americas at least 13,000 years.
Probably something like 3 people/day die in Chicago for looking at someone the wrong way. The Ice wouldn't scare me.
Or more likely there is only so much room to fit people in the Bay Area.
Can always cram more people in. Manilla has a population density per sq km of:
41,515 people.
San Francisco itself has a population density of
6,659
(I imagine the combined Bay area will be a little lower than that) So you should be able to cram at least 30million more people into the Bay Area if you try).
You could create a lot of SnapChat clones with 30million programmers.
Wikipedia is really pretty amazing. Of course, we all know that; but, it's worth reflecting that, on a public platform, that most people can edit to a degree- it's not more chaos than it is. Maybe I've just not been to the right (or wrong) pages, but there is way less graffiti than one would have expected.
If you had told me in the 80's that something like Wikipedia would exist and be as good as it is, I would have laughed in your face and called you a pee-pee face. (I was a kid in the 80's).
Why do people think that having a recognizable user name makes them right?
Basic psychology. If you have a name you associate with, you're more likely to care (although not necessarily) what others think. It does seem to work.
If you look at the average "named" post and the average "ac" post- the average named post is of a higher quality and usually less controversial. That's not to say there aren't great AC posts, there are. There are also some godawful "named" posts.
On behalf of myself and my 33 sock-accounts.
Sorry.