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


Forgot your password?

Comment Turing machines for simple tasks = future cheating (Score 1) 301

Voting systems, cars, refrigerators, whatever - if you take a simple task like regulating a fuel mixture, or counting votes, and rather than use a simple methodology or circuit to accomplish the task at hand and instead use a re-programmable Turing machine, you introduce the certainty that the owner of the device - who is not the same as the person who bought the device! - will change the code at will to do whatever makes the owner a profit. Change the code in the engine, beat emissions tests. Change a few votes, keep a reconstruction of a country to your advantage going. Put an AI in charge of driving a car, and police or dictators will use that AI to control people they don't like. There is no judicial solution for this, as you cannot jail a corporation. The solution is to de-complexify the systems, reintroduce simplest-possible solutions that do not use Turing devices to accomplish tasks. Fuel mixing do not require AI and a telematics system networked to the internet. Though it is inevitable that a generation born to complex IT solutions be blind to the downsides of those solutions. Rule of thumb: if you can't control what it is doing, don't trust it.

Comment Premise incorrect (Score 1) 233

We're not "Ubering" because we're more mobile. We're becoming more mobile because companies are being Ubered. This is not an effect, this is a cause. Companies are Ubering because that way they can eliminate pensions, benefits, salaries, wages, and even the employees - Uber, for the uber example, plans on replacing all those "contractors" with robot cars. That means: all taxi drivers, gone. All Uber drivers, gone. Net result: the "inevitable" funneling of all profits to the owners and to Wall Street. The cost of public assistance to the newly destitute will, of course, be borne by taxpayers and the rest of society. Loss of retail revenue, loss of homes to bankers as mortgage holders default in poverty, decline of some neighborhoods that once housed the poor and lower middle class, with an increased crime rate which, of course, will be blamed on the lack of morals and gumption of the poor. So, more prisons, more pauper's graves, more of the usual invisible disaster that hyper-capitalism is greedily enabling.

Let's not even talk about what is going to happen to the tens of millions of truck drivers.

Comment Re:Opt-In (Score 2) 236

There is no way our security forces will let this be anything but mandatory. Manual-control vehicles will be phased out, and eventually will be criminal to drive without some sort of cop-controlled shutoff, at least. Hell, the financing companies alone love external control. They use it to disable cars which have buyers late on their car payments. They can get rid of repo men if the cars drive themselves back to the dealer.

Comment Re:A compromise (Score 1) 236

It would have to be a mechanical kill switch for the power bus that services all the automated systems, including the robot on your brakes, accelerator, and steering, or it is just a cute story you tell yourself so you feel better. And no cute integrated batteries that can wake up if a cop wants to override. A computerized switch is a joke.

Comment Re:passenger safety (Score 2) 236

Any code and procedure can and will be dumped when convenient. Rules can't fix this. Don't accept controlled cars. Don't accept self-driving cars. Don't accept cars controlled by Turing machines which by definition are reprogrammable. Accept only rack-and-pinion steering, hydraulically controlled brakes modulated by your foot, and an accelerator that doesn't ignore your commands when it feels like it. Like e-voting: there is NO correct solution. Any effort is useless to control a computer when hostile outside forces have access. A computer is hackable, and you don't let it control a two-ton tank with you inside.

Comment Re:Only when a warrant is issued, or with permissi (Score 1) 236

"I don't think there will be much argument about this, particularly in Amercia, where the deaths per capita inlicted by 'law enforcement', are similar to the murder rates in more civilised countries."

Well said. And rightwingers only have so many mod points, so let me give ya a hand here.

Comment Re:Brave new "future" (Score 1) 236

Never saw the movie. That writer was a clear thinker, wasn't he?

I'm not worried about car jackers, who are about as frequent as lighting strikes. Worried about our invisible political lords and masters. Imagine a Dick Cheney with this power. Oh god. Assange's car would have driven into a, let us say, a concrete wall at high speed. Snowden's taxi would roll over a railing and down into a gorge. Hell, why be obvious: just drive a random passing car on the street into a political opponent as they cross at a red light. Ooopsie! What a shame, must have been programmer error.

Comment Re:Answer: Never (Score 1) 236

Yup. Since the drug war and 9/11, the young have been raised in a police state. They know nothing else. And don't get me started on the technoeutopians... rich white kids who will never have their cars driven to a lonely spot by a cop for a little impromptu electrocution and tooth extraction. It's the troublemakers and the poor who will see the interior of a Vehicle Sequester concrete box when they annoy some Homeland Security hawk or local cop or even one of our lovely CIA bastards assigned to remove Snowdens from the world.

We're living in a giant, open air prison. I hate being right.

Comment Rolling arrest pod (Score 2) 236

I've been pointing out the obvious ever since they had the brilliant idea of controlling a car by Turing machines on an internal network, hooked up to a external cell phone network. It will follow inevitably that: bad guys will take control, at the worst possible time, or police will exercise their immediately taken prerogative to stop, control, or block vehicles, or a combination of the two, as police aren't always nice, and sometimes the term "police" means "shadowy people who have lots of power and don't like you - at all."

It will be used immediately to monitor and control cars run by poor people in rich neighborhoods or towns, because of the Children, of course. And the Wikileaks supporters, and people like Assange or Snowden, or women rights supporters in Saudi Arabia wouldn't dare step into a swell new car without taking a chance that the car doors lock, the windows freeze, and their cars drive to a lovely lonely place with a waiting squad of armored men with machine guns await them for a final escort to a place where people never leave, alive or dead. Not only do your phones and TVs listen in and track you, but you can't trust your car not to take you away while you try desperately to break the windows. They'll probably just provide a escort car behind to make sure you can't jump to freedom.

Picture this, if the above scenario makes you giggle: you're driving to work, and suddenly your steering wheel stops working. The car exists the freeway, and drives to a police station, where a squad of SWAT-armored (they wear it to bust massage parlors, for satan's sake) point guns at you and tell you to exit the vehicle. Why? Who the fuck cares? You could have too many parking tickets (and they will KNOW when you park illegally). Hell, they'll just build a concrete box to slot cars into, to make it dead easy to get you out without risk to themselves. Mass removal of troublemakers made automated. Hell, just drive the cars into a jail receiving garage and starve the passengers out if they don't want to get out, why risk a cop?

I wonder how they'll support local law enforcement when cars *can't* speed? I digress. They'll invent new crimes, of course.

It will be damned impossible to annoy or challenge people with power to control your car. It'll be a rolling arrest cage. God, what good little boys and girls we shall be.

A fun note, to the person who called me out as insane when I predicted a terrorist would just nuke the car controls en masse with an EMP bomb/gun, when I used the term "carnage": when they killed the WIRED journalist's car dead on the expressway, he had a truck barreling up behind the car. If the truck had hit him, "carnage" would have been the term to describe his death. And that was a FRIENDLY demonstration of what happens when you let a computer control your brakes, controls, and accelerator.

What am I saying? Don't. Let. Computers. Control. Your. Car. EVER. Don't buy them, demand mechanical controls. Buy an Elio, when and if they come out, and make sure the Elioites don't "improve" the autocar by adding self-driving computer systems. Not that they'll have a choice, if we don't start fighting this off now.

I have no hope this stops. A generation of people who went to school with their faces on their floor while dogs sniff their crotches, and were arrested if they drew someone punching someone, aren't exactly trained to fight for their freedom. They never had freedom; how would they care?

Comment Re:King of my castle (Score 1) 664

You do not own the airspace above your home. This has been long established. The Prudential Building in Chicago was literally built ABOVE the railroad's private property on a huge platform, and there wasn't a thing they could do about it (everyone hated the railroads by 1950, and even the courts are not above being petty little children).

The cops are videoing the countryside with unbelievably high megapixel cameras on aircraft - you are on Candid Camera now, and I expect someday troublemakers will get cameras on their noggins along with a tracker on their ankle. Worse is coming, as the drones will shrink and interferometric arrays of tiny gnat-like flying cameras will take to the skies. You could fry them with lasers- oh, waitaminute, they've done the groundwork and terrorized everyone about terroristic laser-flashing the skies, so that's out. Best hide inside. Oh, that's right, they can see through walls with that radio gadget...

Comment Re:Only? (Score 1) 664

The FBI and local cops are flying supercameras over the country as we speak in heliocopters, planes, and drones. Eyes in the sky that see the entire city/countryside and can digitally zoom in retroactively. You are being hovered over and caught on video on your property all the damned time. Best those who worry about such things put burkhas on their teenaged daughters, 'cause it is way too late to worry about someone seeing their pink carcasses.

Comment Re:Only? (Score 1) 664

You are aware that your projectiles don't go into orbit? Those come down at the same speed, about, that you imparted when you shot at the socialist ISIS pedo spy drone - and if you missed. Firing into the sky is the same as firing randomly into a crowd. I doubt very much you can discharge firearms into the air legally. You may find that out the day you shoot a baby in a crib. It happens all the time in Chicago, though we tend to consider firing guns on our property illegal. Hell, the Mythbusters Team 2 fired a cannonball into an earthen embankment. Tried to -- the iron ball flew screaming out into the surrounding neighborhood and stopped in someone's house, as I recall. I'm as leave-me-alone as one can get, and even I don't think I can just fire a weapon into the air, Annie Oakley or not. You can *miss*.

"We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievement." -- Richard J. Daley