Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Things Fox News doesn't show (Score 2, Insightful) 645

Fox News never showed the 60,000+ Iraqis we incinerated, shot, and crushed to death. Nor the burnt and mangled children and adults who survived our attacks. Or the prison camps, mostly holding people who we felt like might be a problem - and who are probably still in the camps. If you wanted to cover such things, you could go to hell, as far as the military was concerned. People died finding truth while Fox's old draft avoiding men and MILFy women pseudonewspeople in tight skirts sat in air-conditioned studios and made. Shit. Up.

Comment Re:What's actually going to happen... (Score 1) 481

And in another decade, that system is overwhelmed, and in two more decades, useless. Population growth problems expand geometrically, not linearly. Too many people in too little space trying to do things as their great-great-great-grandparents did on the open prairies and mountainsides. No matter what is done, in one or two generations it is overcome again. You have to shoot where the bird is gonna be, not where it is - solutions that solve your generation's problem will be a disaster to a future generations who are much more numerous, not to mention their proclivities to consume more each year.

Comment Too many people (Score 1) 481

Can't overpopulate and not expect consequences. The complications arrive on a hockey-stick curve, as geometric growth is *not* linear. The complexity of the structure to support that population builds slowly, then accelerates rapidly - and finally cannot be sustained. And as taxes don't expand geometrically, the lines cross and infrastructure failure commences. And that already happened; we can't - or won't- raise enough money to fix the aggregate and growing backlog of repair of structures our grandparents started. And perhaps shouldn't - open roads and suburbs made sense when there were a hundred million people. A half-billion people will grind the flow to a halt - and their very presence makes it nearly impossible to expand existing roads or train lines. We could: 1) keep pretending 1950 will last forever, and fail. 2) increase taxes and become ferocious about emminent domain and build the train lines we need whereever they need to be. 3) learn to tunnel cheaply and extensively and build out underground 4) fly 5) control population growth and the hell that comes with it when it achieves orbital velocity, as it is now - accept a slow rollback period while supporting a gigantic population of aging people for a few decades, then a stable, smaller population could be sustained at the level of expenditure we care to support (expenditure not being just money - we expend wildlife and ecologies to expand our numbers).

America declared overpopulation a solved problem - because it can't do math. Nothing can grow forever in a closed system.

United States

DOT Warns of Dystopian Future For Transportation 481

An anonymous reader writes The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued a 300-page PDF outlining the grim future of transportation infrastructure in North America over the next thirty years, and inviting debate on the issue. The report presents a vision of 2045 with LA-style traffic jams in Nebraska, trains too full to pick up any more passengers and airports underwater due to climate change — all in a climate of chronic under-investment, even at levels needed to maintain existing transport infrastructure. Among possible solutions outlined are self-driving cars using vehicle-to-vehicle (V2I) crash-avoidance technologies, such as those currently in development by Google — and in fact transportation secretary Anthony Foxx was joined by Google CEO Eric Schmidt at the launch of DOT's "Beyond Traffic" initiative.

Comment My usual comments... networked car not good idea (Score 1) 44

I started out admiring disruptive tech. As the years rolled on, I noted that computation and networking were no longer under our control; we've no choice in how we are connected, nor to which computers we use, for instance in cases such as these. The motivation for change is to make more money, first, and next to improve surveillance and control. Convenience is just a by-broduct.
I see no reason to not-use a key to open my door. At least the thief has to be physically present to break into a mechanical locked door. Networked computers will never be secure, not when backdoors are mandated by manufacturers and cops of all sorts. And those backdoors will be in the hands of crooks in months if not hours. Hell, the crooks are finding the backdoors the cops-of-all-sorts then use themselves.
Waiting on my Elio. eliomotors.com Back to the future. K.I.S.S.
And hey, it's possible to build a mechanically locked door no AAA locksmith can open. It's just that we WANT to be able to break into our own cars, if necessary. The key words being "we" and "our own".

Comment Says who? Why? What if we don't want to? (Score 2) 228

Who asked for this?
The industry eagerness to bug and track everything is universal. Why? The first answer is always: money. The second, and most accurately stated: power. Knowing where everyone is, and what they are doing, is power. But that power is not for schmucks.
Pity we didn't have this universal eagerness to limit population growth, or control suburban land conversion, or to colonize free space with habitats. But power over others? No fucking limits.
Power, by the way, means Occupies are impossible to pull off. Protests. Contrary political movements, ultimately. Other words, any challenge to seated power is gonna be nearly impossible.
Hell, in England, they're already starting dossiers on kintergarteners. Just monitor what they read and do all their lives, and soon there won't be a population that even thinks of rebellion of any sort. Or could talk about it without systems monitoring and integrating the information for future suppression. And yes, I'm aware that that sounds "paranoid". But once again, I'm not predicting, I'm telling you what's already happened.
To take this back to the point of the article, there is no WAY that this eagerly sought supersaturated net of bugs - and that's what they are - will not be used for surveillance and control. I really don't need to know what is in my refrigerator that much.

Comment Re:Wrong issue (Score 1) 290

Due process is meaningless as far as limiting behavior. It sorta means "customary" or "expected". Secret charges and secret courts and secret prisons have been permanently established in this country following due process. Process just rubber-stamps whatever the madhouse wants to do. The real dichotomy is what is illegal versus what is immoral or just plain wrong. Rules are morally neutral.

Comment Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? (Score 1) 290

The people in this country cannot be trusted. The police are just an expression of the common culture. Given a choice, people prefer fascism, under whatever name you like. What was it Terry Pratchett said through the Patricican... what people want, what they really want, is that tomorrow be pretty much like today. They want stability and a perception of safety. To that end, they know no limits in restricting the efforts of their neighbors to not-be-like-every-else. From surveillance, to secret police and secret arrests, they support conformity and the Others getting their heads kicked in by the guards. The police are civilians, and they have no special belief system not held by the people they sometimes admit they work for... our culture likes authoritarian thugs (for use against troublemakers), so our police likes being authoritarian thugs when necessary.

Google

Google Thinks the Insurance Industry May Be Ripe For Disruption 238

HughPickens.com writes: The insurance industry is a fat target — there's were about $481 billion in premiums in 2013, and agents' commissions of about $50 billion. Now Conor Dougherty writes in the NYT that the boring but lucrative trade has been attracting big names like Google, which has formed a partnership with Comparenow, an American auto insurance comparison site that will give Google access to insurers in Comparenow's network. "A lot of people are waking up to the fact that it's a massive industry, it's old-fashioned, they still use human agents and the commissions are pretty big," says Jennifer Fitzgerald. It may seem like an odd match for Google, whose projects include driverless cars, delivery drones and a pill to detect cancer, but the key to insurance is having lots of data about people's backgrounds and habits, which is perhaps the company's greatest strength. "They have a ton of data on where people drive, how people drive," says Jon McNeill. "It's the holy grail of being able to price auto insurance correctly."

People in the industry and Silicon Valley say it is only a matter of time before online agencies attack the armies of intermediaries that are the backbone of the trade, and Google could present formidable competition for other insurance sellers. As many as two-thirds of insurance customers say they would consider purchasing insurance products from organizations other than insurers, including 23 percent who would consider buying from online service providers such as Google and Amazon. Google Compare auto insurance site has already been operating in Britain for two years as a search engine for auto insurance prices.
Communications

FBI Seeks To Legally Hack You If You're Connected To TOR Or a VPN 385

SonicSpike writes The investigative arm of the Department of Justice is attempting to short-circuit the legal checks of the Fourth Amendment by requesting a change in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. These procedural rules dictate how law enforcement agencies must conduct criminal prosecutions, from investigation to trial. Any deviations from the rules can have serious consequences, including dismissal of a case. The specific rule the FBI is targeting outlines the terms for obtaining a search warrant. It's called Federal Rule 41(b), and the requested change would allow law enforcement to obtain a warrant to search electronic data without providing any specific details as long as the target computer location has been hidden through a technical tool like Tor or a virtual private network. It would also allow nonspecific search warrants where computers have been intentionally damaged (such as through botnets, but also through common malware and viruses) and are in five or more separate federal judicial districts. Furthermore, the provision would allow investigators to seize electronically stored information regardless of whether that information is stored inside or outside the court's jurisdiction.

Slashdot Top Deals

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Working...