Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:It's not your phone (Score 3, Insightful) 610

Seems to me that the problem is people wanting to complain over nothing. So what if an album (and it's not like it's something offensive) gets added to your iTunes account as a 'purchased' product?

Maybe Apple could have added a new category with a separate list of "Free Media" or something, but seriously? I'm no fan of Apple but this is a storm in a molehill.

Comment: Re:HAL 9000 (Score 1) 120

by fractoid (#47906107) Attached to: The Challenges and Threats of Automated Lip Reading
In addition to the other suggestions made here, one use case for machine lip reading is tracking multiple simultaneous conversations in a crowd. You could theoretically have searchable index of anything anyone said in view of a particular camera (whereas once more than 2-3 people are talking at once, it becomes almost impossible to separate out their individual speech.)

Comment: Re:And it looks abysmal too (Score 1) 132

by fractoid (#47905587) Attached to: 3D-Printed Car Takes Its First Test Drive
Exactly. I hate seeing 3D printing touted as a mass production technique when in fact it's terrible for that. Traditional mass production methods like injection molding, vacuum forming, milling, etc. are intrinsically better in most cases and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

3D printing is great for prototyping and very short production runs, not for mass production.

Comment: Re:Now what could go wrong? (Score 2) 376

by fractoid (#47701695) Attached to: Rightscorp's New Plan: Hijack Browsers Until Infingers Pay Up

and that's what should require a strong burden of proof on the part of the copyright holder.

Not any more! That's kind of the point of these pushes to alter the way copyrights are enforced online: They want to shift the burden of proof from the copyright holder to the alleged infringer.

Comment: Re:Huh? (Score 1) 406

by fractoid (#47627097) Attached to: Idiot Leaves Driver's Seat In Self-Driving Infiniti, On the Highway

A machine that has actually failed in some way has proven that it is not "100x more reliable" than anything. It is broken. It is no longer a matter of probabilities.

No it hasn't. A machine that will perform a given task correctly 9999/10000 times is 100x more reliable than a human that will only perform that same task correctly 9900/10000 times. A rare combination of factors that make the machine fail don't make it absolutely broken, any more than the human is "broken and no longer a matter of probabilities" if they make a mistake sometimes.

Believing that machines can be "aware" is the failure here.

I'm not sure what metaphysical definition you're using for 'aware'. When a control system (biological or not) gathers information via a sensor and processes that information in a way that can affect the system's behaviour, then it's 'aware' of the thing that sensor measures.

As for the straw-man argument about the stroke victim, consider this alternate scenario: You've got a passenger in the back seat of your conventional, manual-controlled car and you're heading to the hospital. You have a seizure and lose vision in both eyes. You're "aware" that your video sensors have failed, and refuse to drive further. Would I, the passenger in the back seat, prefer to be perfectly safe with the car pulled over, or would I prefer that you kept going despite failed sensors (maybe with me shouting out "left a bit!" "right a bit!" to try and guide you)?

Today's scientific question is: What in the world is electricity? And where does it go after it leaves the toaster? -- Dave Barry, "What is Electricity?"