Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Prove it (Score 1) 249

The onus is on him to show that his new technology is actually safer than human drivers. So far the only arguments I've seen from him are hand-wavy approximations.

This isn't a web app, you're dealing with people's lives, you can afford to publish some proper research to demonstrate how the AI compares to humans.

Take the initial fatal crash that caused all the uproar. It turned out the car couldn't see the white truck because of the sunlight and time of day. Is that a scenario they examined during testing? Why didn't the AI refuse to drive in those conditions?

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 1) 537

Or promise to keep ban Muslim immigration (race and religion are well correlated).

Idiots like you probably think Iranians and Arabs are the same race because they both wear turbans sometimes. They're not.

You are of course, completely wrong in your understanding of my beliefs.

I wonder, will your wrongness cause you to re-evaluate your own beliefs?

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 1) 537

But with all that Trump has said or promoted, I've not seen yet where he came out to promote the agenda that is against equality in matters of gender and race.

You've apparently never heard him judge women overwhelmingly based on their looks and sex appeal.

Or say that a Mexican judge wasn't fit to judge him explicitly because of his race.

Or repeatedly imply that all black people lived in the ghettos.

Or promise to keep ban Muslim immigration (race and religion are well correlated).

Or you know, campaign at all, including all of the subtler stuff he implies, but I won't mention because there's no point in arguing subtle implications with people who can't even admit his hair is fake.

This is really getting dangerous in this country, if people start getting blackballed, hired or fired for having expressed mere support for X political party or Y viewpoint.

Here I agree, their opinions are wrong and stupid, but most everyone is wrong and stupid about something, and they should be free to express their dumb ideas without fear of getting fired.

Comment Re:Here's the full menu (Score 1) 171

The Melinda Gates idea was a bit odd since I'm not sure what she's done of significance other than marry Bill Gates. And I don't think that's a narrative that Hillary Clinton really wanted to introduce to the campaign. I take it as an indication that this was a very preliminary list.

The number of business people is surprising, I think they were worried that Trump would start coming across as competent and they're need someone richer to undercut the "rich business person knows how to fix economy" narrative.

Comment Re:Attacking the source (Score 1) 171

Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.

So I read more of the link for context and was surprised to see Adams acknowledge that Trump was guilty.

It doesn't change the validity of disputing the account of an extremely dishonest source like James O'Keefe.

Comment Re:Interesting, but not suprising. Identity politi (Score 0) 171

I'm not *suprised* the Dems lumped candidates into buckets based solely on race and gender, rather than perhaps QUALIFICATIONS FOR JOB, but I do find it interesting and illustrative

The concern trolling is adorable but misplaced.

All this shows is that one guy grouped people based on the obvious political signalling implications of each pick, which is pretty much the main effect of a VP pick in the general election. There's no reason they would have gone forward with an unqualified candidate based solely on gender (such as certain nominees named McCain).

I would hope that if someone like Paul Ryan was making the list his categories would be something like:

Legistlative Experience
Executive Experience (govt)
Executive Experience (private sector)
Foreign Policy Experience

I would hope I get a T-Rex for my birthday. I think I have a better than you.

Paul Ryan would choose his pick the same way every other nominee does, to balance the ticket and improve his general election chances. Qualifications matter only if they pass a minimum bar, after that no one really cares.

McCain chose Palin because he needed a wildcard to beat Obama (he forgot about making sure she was over the minimum bar).

Obama chose Biden to be a safe white guy with lots of experience to balance the cool black guy with relatively little experience.

Romney chose Ryan because Ryan was respected by the Tea Party (which was very dubious of Romney).

Trump chose Pence to reassure the GOP that Trump would be under adult supervision.

In 2020 Ryan is liable to choose someone like Marco Rubio, a Hispanic who can repair some of the damage done by Trump and start flipping some culturally conservative Hispanics to the Republican column.

Comment Re:Attacking the source (Score 0) 171


Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.

I'd largely agree, with exceptions. I'd also point out it's ironic considering how much of a Trump fan Scott Adams is (ie, Trump's response to the women accusing him of assault).

I don't know about those sorts of things, maybe this is the statistically improbably case where a non-guilty person attacks the messenger.

Then again, you don't cite any sources, show independent reviews of the evidence, or even any rationalization. Just "the evidence is junk".

Was that on purpose?

I'll cite a source that says James O'Keefe makes videos that are lies after I cite a source that says the sky is blue. Both are extremely well established facts.

As for further reviews, I'm not going to bother analyzing manufactured evidence.

Comment Re:Why go for fluff instead of meat? (Score 0) 171

Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?

Because the evidence is junk.

First the "investigative" video is by James O'Keefe, who is infamous for dishonestly editing and framing videos to create the false appearance of criminal behaviour. And yes, you're allowed to shoot the messenger when the messenger is lying.

As for the woman Zulema, even if she was a Clinton supporter or even worked some aspect of the Clinton campaign (they must have thousands of paid staffers) that doesn't mean she was part of a Clinton conspiracy to frame Sanders supporters for violent protests. People who work in politics sometimes care about politics too, and they're more than capable of attending a protest on their own.

Oh, and I don't know what she has to do with the violent protests anyway, the video is of her at a peaceful (though disruptive) protest on a highway!

Comment Re:What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score 1) 377

If speech doesn't offend anyone, nobody will try to ban it. The only type of speech in need of protection is that which someone considers offensive and wants to ban. I consider hate speech a good thing because it's indicative of a free society. One of the first things to go in a society that isn't free is hate speech, a fact that has been documented throughout history. Regimes that aren't free tend to restrict speech, and we need to promote free thought and free speech. In a free society, you should speak against hate speech rather than attempt to ban it.

And speaking against speech is exactly what they're doing.

In specific, the creator of Pepe the Frog is trying to reclaim his creation from being a symbol of hate speech.

Comment Re:He isn't really gay (Score 1) 613

because that's how lefties think. They think politics descends from biology. Sure it's hella bigoted and racist, but that's how they roll.

Ironically your broad and infantilizing stereotype of "lefties" is wrong.

Minorities, particularly sexual minorities, will trend left. This is partially because conservatism tends to endorse cultural conformity, but also because large portions of conservatism are actively hostile towards minorities.

Thus gay conservatives are more than a little unusual.

But that's different from saying that "politics descends from biology", as I suspect the majority of the left understands.

Comment Re:Funny how everyone who doesn't like liberal (Score 1) 311

Funny how everyone who doesn't worship the liberal establishment automatically turns into "literally Hitler", and the same people who previously supported that person have a full body orgasm when they're taken down.

Yes, they're not measured and rational like Trump's long time friend and advisor Roger Stone who thinks Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are literal demons.

Comment Re:The Goldman talks... (Score 1) 311

Nobody cares about the content of those talks, least of all anybody at Goldman Sachs. She could have stood at the lectern and read Rod McKuen poems for all they care. The issue is that the money Goldman gave her for those "speeches" are in fact bribes paid on spec, against the contingency of her getting into the white house.


You ever attend a professional sports game? Part of it is to watch the performance, part of it is see your heroes in person.

Now imagine you're a rich bank having a company event, spending a few hundred thousand dollars for an A-list politician to give a speech and even answer a few questions makes a lot of sense. Your employees are happier (better recruitment and retention) and it makes your company look that much more successful and prestigious (more business in the future).

Oh, and if you think the Clinton speeches were bribes, then why people bribing Donald Trump in 2006 and 2007? Because Trump made a hell of a lot more than Clinton.

Comment Re:What are PROBABLY Russians (Score 3, Informative) 435

From the article:
"researchers assess with moderate confidence that the group is operating from the Russian Federation and is gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government"

I know it fits the playbook to simply call them "Russian Hackers" but hey, maybe...journalism instead?

Did you read the rest of the article, and the buzzfeed article as well?

First the group has been going after Russia's enemies for years, including Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, and Germany. This suggests the group is very pro-Russian.

Second the group has used multiple zero-day exploits in its attacks, which strongly suggests a state actor. Not only because getting zero-day exploits is really hard, but zero day exploits are also very valuable, and the described hacks only really had significant value to the Russian government.

I'm not sure why SecureWorks is hedging so much, but the hacks being orchestrated by the Russian government seems extremely likely.

Slashdot Top Deals

No problem is so large it can't be fit in somewhere.