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: Hunger strike... how silly (Score 1) 67

There is no need to scroll down, as both definitions fit on the same page. You probably just don't understand the difference between formal and informal definitions. OED clearly marks the older definition of "hacker" as informal, and hence secondary. It's like the difference between the formal definition of "Neanderthal" -- An extinct species of human that was widely distributed in ice-age Europe between c.120,000 and 35,000 years ago, with a receding forehead and prominent brow ridges" -- and the informal definition as someone who stubbornly lives in the past.

Comment Re: Hunger strike... how silly (Score 3, Informative) 67

You are confused about how word defintions are canonized. Check the Oxford English Dictionary: words are defined by their current language and practical usage. This is why "cleave" today means "separate" when in the past it meant "join".

Nostalgic tinkerers from yesteryear cling to the earliest, now extinct, definition of hacker, which was indeed innocuous. That definition dates from the 1950s, when consumers seldom used technical means for electronics or computing. Today's usage of "hackin", in an era when most consumers are much more technical than in the mid-20th, refers almost exclusively to illegal intrusive technical means.

Comment Smart guy, stupid argument (Score 1) 269

For a smart guy, Elon seems amazingly stupid about statistics. Trillions of human-driven miles accumulate each year, and that's just in the U.S. The fatal accident rate compared to miles driven is extremely low -- about 25 deaths per billion miles driven ( And this is with drivers actively evading dangerous situations tens of thousands of times per day. Not perfectly, but acceptably. In contrast, driverless cars have not competed with nearly enough vehicles for any valid statistical significance. Moreover, nobody knows how well driverless cars interact with each other, since there are so few on the road.

So Musk's claim that media reports are killing people is statistical poppycock.

Comment Re: Sounds reasonable (Score 2) 204

The problem is that cops can scan anyone's cards -- not just gift cards but debit cards as well -- and then drain the accounts, seizing the money by claiming a criminal connection. They don't have to prove a thing -- or even charge the victim with a crime! It's happening today:

Comment Re: I reject the premise... (Score 1) 116

To you, maybe. Apparently you have cheap and ready access to all the environments you need to be productive in your career. I assure you that VR is alive and well for cost-effective and safe training in aviation, surgery, deep sea diving, and other costly and risky work environments. A pilot can safely practice single-engine instrument approaches to minimums in a VR simulator, for instance. Maybe you want to do that in a real aircraft, but I don't.

Comment Re:I reject the premise... (Score 2) 116

You're right that VR doesn't fit Apple's vibe. And there's nothing wrong with that. Apple doesn't have a commercial database for the MacOS either, leaving that to Microsoft and Oracle. They are free to choose their fields of battle, and it's unwise -- as Microsoft has learned -- to try to do everything.

Comment A reef is not a "living thing" (Score -1) 99

A reef is no more a "living thing" than a forest is a "living thing." These guys call it a "living thing" just so they can "the largest living thing", to make their breathless alarm more alarmy. Both systems are complex networks of individual living things. When environmentalists claim aggregates are organisms (e.g. "An ant colony is a living thing." No, it isn't), they are thingomorphizing. Otherwise known as fantasy.

Now, what causes these periodic die-offs? Are they normal or anthropogenic? Nobody knows, because we haven't got near enough data. And correlation with vague temperature averages isn't remotely enough to qualify as scientific proof of anything. Yes, we should study it. No, we should not panic. Nor become breathless-alarmy.

Comment Re: This is not AI (Score 1) 76

This is not AI, because we cannot even explain how human reasoning works, let alone reproduce it in a computer. In fact, we can't even explain how learning works, and reasoning is based on learning. In fact, we can't even explain how semantic memory works, and reasoning and learning both depend upon semantic memory. In fact, we can't even explain how an answer reasons. Yet it do.

Comment Re: I reject the premise... (Score 1) 116

I reject your argument that VR and AR compete. R&D isn't a zero sum game. Their individual markets drives each, and a growing market in both can support simultaneously aggressive R&D expenditures. And your comparison of simultaneous use by a single person is bogus as well. We're talking about products sold, not products used at the same time. I am quite as likely to buy both AR and VR, for their respective (and non-intersecting) applications, as I am to buy both fruit and footwear, for their respective (and non-intersecting) applications.

Comment I reject the premise... (Score 5, Interesting) 116

...that there is a dichotomy between VR and AR. They are not mutually exclusive, any more than fruit and footwear are mutually exclusive. VR and AR don't compete, either; they have different applications. The intent of VR is not to emulate human interaction, but to artificially immerse people in environments to which most don't have ready access: flight simulation, museum tours, product design, etc. The purpose of AR is to overlay information on everyone's existing experience: navigation, shopping, and the like.

Move along.

Slashdot Top Deals

Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.