Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 1) 398

by DedTV (#49528869) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules Extending Traffic Stop For Dog Sniff Unconstitutional

To be honest, I figured that it /had/ to be a bad ruling and spent a while trying to understand why it was wrong, just because of how they've been lately. Perhaps I'm just paranoid.

Drug dogs just don't have enough lobbyists paying every nephew and 3rd cousin twice removed each justice has to get a "typical" ruling.

Comment: Standard political platform conformity is news? (Score 1) 653

by DedTV (#49426367) Attached to: Carly Fiorina Calls Apple's Tim Cook a 'Hypocrite' On Gay Rights
So, there's a Republican candidate running on a platform of "I vow to say that anything a Democrat says or does is Unamerican, Treasonous, a war on Religion (Christianity of course being the only valid religion) and/or hypocritical. How? Mainly by waiting for them to say how everything I believe in is discriminatory and disgusting then attacking them as hypocrites and liars because they only criticized me for saying I think gay people are subhumans who don't deserve the same rights as people who live by the tenets set forth in a 2000 year old novel, while completely failing to mention some some 3rd world Warlord who kills gay people outright. I will then go on Fox News and tell the world how it's Hillary and Obama's fault that the Warlord hates gays because they failed to go back in time and make Richard Simmons answer a fan letter that was sent by said Warlord to him in 1979; all while Sean Hannity performs analingous on me just off camera."
What makes that newsworthy?

If /. plans to report on every bit of stupidity that falls out of political candidates mouths, well... it'll be just like every other "news" site in the U.S.

Comment: Re:I think it's already been used (Score 2) 76

by DedTV (#49374321) Attached to: Material Made From Crustaceans Could Combat Battlefield Blood Loss
The U.S. has had hemostatic dressings since at least World War II. Soldiers carried a mix of sulfanilamide, aluminum sulfate and titanium dioxide, the use of which is still taught at the US Army Combat Medic school and the USAF Pararescue School. Although in practice, the military now uses modern Combat Gauzes like Quik Clot, Celox Gauze and ChitoGauze on the battlefield.

Comment: Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible (Score 1) 267

by DedTV (#49374139) Attached to: Generate Memorizable Passphrases That Even the NSA Can't Guess
Password managers aren't a magic solution either as someone with a camera phone and a good angle or infection by a simple keylogger can negate any security a password manager can provide. Plus, they give attackers a single point of focus to gain access to all your passwords for every website you use (and potentially more if you use form fill in features to store credit card info) in a very handy reference list. Like everything else, they're only a secure as the weakest point in the chain between you and whichever manager you use.

The only real solution for people who value their online identity is to never establish one at all. And even then someone might establish one in your name if they get access to the right records database. All anyone can really do is try to find a solution that is convenient and not stupidly insecure while ensuring they know how to minimize the damage if/when their information is compromised in some way (watch bank and credit card statements, check credit report frequently, etc..).

Comment: Re: Oblig (Score 1) 662

by DedTV (#49361681) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear
Being handed a box with the contents of your office by security along with a document from the legal department that detail which clause(s) of your contract have been breached so they can avoid having to pay you for the remainder of the contract term and void any golden handshake provisions in the contract is how people with contracts get fired.
Not having your contract renewed is akin to being given a gold watch and cake.

Comment: Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible (Score 1) 267

by DedTV (#49357931) Attached to: Generate Memorizable Passphrases That Even the NSA Can't Guess
I prefer simple, personal methods easy for humans to remember but difficult for machines to guess. Things like passages out of a favorite book, modified versions of song lyrics, etc.
For example, take the first half of a chorus from one song and a the last half of a verse from another by a different artist of a different genre and combine them and you have a multiple word pass phrase that's easy to remember . Even if the attacker knows to use song lyrics, with so many songs out there and ways to vary how you use their lyrics, it'd still be very difficult to break by machine.

Comment: Re: Oblig (Score 1) 662

by DedTV (#49357711) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear
Apparently, he didn't get sacked. They're just not renewing his contract. Which means he gets to sit on his ass and get paid by the BBC while fielding offers from pretty much every other media company in the world until his contract expires while the guy he punched no longer gets to work for one of the most prestigious show brands in the world.

So, the guy he punched will likely end up on some doomed BBC 2 reality show, The BBC loses a 28 year old brand and a show that brought in over $50 million/year while Clarkson (and potentially May and Hammond) get to find someone willing to pay for the talents honed at the BBC without (apparently) being subject to the no-compete clause and the anger of Top Gear fans that quitting would have subjected them to.

And prosecution? It's England, not the U.S. It was a simple assault by a drunk old man at a pub with with the victim saying publicly that he sustained only minor injury. If Britain imposed prison time for that they'd have more people in jail than the US does every time the World Cup came round. At most he'll get a £500 fine and have to get some counseling.

Comment: Re:Let me fix that for you... (Score 2) 662

by DedTV (#49357467) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear
He never went on a Michael Richards-esque racist rant or anything. He's a comic in the vein of Lenny Bruce, George Carlin and Richard Pryor. Most people get it. Some don't and some just like to get offended because it allows them to express hate toward others in a way that's not only currently socially acceptable, but often encouraged.
Being offended gives them a power over others that they could never have if their brand of self righteous hate wasn't as accepted now as racist hate was in the past. That sort of person is absolutely giddy when someone like Jeremy Clarkson get ordered to the back of the bus.

But inevitably, he doesn't go quietly and meekly to the back, he gets off the bus and drives beside it in a Veyron, revving the engine to redline and laughing at the people offended by the noise.

Comment: Re:Maybe they should ... (Score 1) 211

Much of the state is rural areas with rural students whose ambitions didn't go beyond spending their lives working the family farm just like their daddy and grandaddy; many of whom were traditionally "home schooled" until Arkansas introduced much more stringent requirements on home schooling in the late 90s. The old joke that when it's 12:30 in Little Rock, 15 minutes outside the city it's 1950, isn't really much of a joke as it's not far from fact. That's what drags down the statistics. But those statistics are actually great for the state as the money that keeps coming in to "fix" the "broken" education system (thanks to Arkansas native Bill Clinton's "No Child Left Behind" act, funny how that works out huh?) doesn't go to a town in Monroe Country whose high school graduating class is 12 and has an annual budget of 3 paperclips and a mule. It goes to the schools in the growing business hub cities that were already fairly good so overall, the schools in such cities are now well above average, but with districts carefully designed to include enough rural and impoverished kids to keep the test score averages and graduation rates from looking too good.

This is just another of the measures Arkansas is trying to entice more tech companies to move to Arkansas. It's a dirt cheap place to do business and a dirt cheap place to live (I bought a new, high end 3200 square foot home in 2010 for under $300k) with plenty of undeveloped areas to grow out. They've been working to build out tech infrastructure in Little Rock and between Bentonville (Walmart HQ) to Fort Smith (a manufacturing and shipping hub) for most of the past decade. Now, they're trying to develop the workforce to further support it. And, as you mentioned, Arkansas would absolutely love to attract businesses who sell coding crap or do any other kind of tech stuff. They've been grooming the state for such businesses for years. Get the people selling coding crap here and the people who make coding crap will follow.

Comment: Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... (Score 1) 451

by DedTV (#49305825) Attached to: Lyft CEO: Self-Driving Cars Aren't the Future

That may be true. However, self driving cars are an entirely different matter. While they are really cool, do you really want to be in one hurling down the highway at 85MPH (I'm in Utah) and trusting that the automated systems are going to know the difference between a coyote or a tumbleweed?

Today? No. In 20 years? Almost certainly as by then they should be perfected enough that they'll be a lot safer than sharing the road with vehicles operated manually by a 19 year old who thinks they're such a fantastic driver that they can safely fly down the highway at 120MPH. When I was a tow truck driver just out of HS I watched the CHP spray what was left of such drivers off the road at least once a week.

If a child and a dog run out into the street at the same time from opposite sides, do you trust the car to make the right decision as to which it will run over?

I'd expect we'll have systems that identify any warm blooded creature entering the roadway and instantly apply braking and take evasive maneuvers that human reaction times couldn't possibly compete with and that they'd be more reliable and consistent than human drivers have ever been and they'll be able to communicate what they're seeing and doing with other vehicles nearby so they can measures to ensure they react appropriately as well.

How would you like to be legally responsible for your self driving car if it runs over a child?

You probably wouldn't be liable in such a case. The car maker would be. Just as they are now if a flaw in the car causes an accident. But with an automated car there'd be no way for the car manufacturer to claim it was the driver's fault so it'd take a lot less litigation to assign such liability.

What about black ice?

Machines are already better at identifying black ice than humans via the use of things like thermal imaging and reflective laser analysis. And if you see a patch of black ice, there's no guarantee the guy behind you will see it. But if automated cars became the norm, once one car (or a satellite or drone) sees a patch of black ice, every other car in the area can be notified to avoid it and they could even automatically dispatch an automated service vehicle to remove it.

What if a person is in the road and the car has a choice of running over the person or crashing and possibly killing you.

Why wouldn't the car see the person and stop while sending a signal to all the cars behind it to do the same and avoid a pile up? A car will never be too busy changing the radio station or messing with their phone or driving drunk or fatigued or subject to panic so, even when someone does foolishly run out in the road, the number of times where the option will be "Run over the person or crash into something" will be far rarer than it is today with human drivers.

Do you trust the car to make the right decision?

My car can already parallel park a lot better than I can. And there's already systems for planes that allow them to safely fly and land in conditions it'd be nearly impossible for a human to safely do so. And humans aren't known for making good decisions, especially when they're required to make them quickly. So yeah, once the technology matures to the same point as automated parallel parking, automated cruise control and Automatic braking have, I'd trust it to drive.

>As much as I like software (and writing it), there are IMHO too many judgement calls for a computer and in many situations too many for a lot of (supposedly sane) people.

As much as I like humans, and as much fun it is creating more of them, there are IMHO too many physical and mental limitations for even a supposedly sane human to do as quickly and accurately and make judgements based upon the available data as a well programmed machine can.

The only way I can see self driving cars really working is to have special roads to carry them.

I agree. Animals, weather and normal road hazards aren't much of a problem. But automated vehicles will never be good enough to reliably handle all the stupid and unpredictable things humans do while driving. It'll likely take a major societal shift where individually owned vehicles become a thing of the past and all the vehicles on the road are publicly owned and automated before automated vehicles are really viable. But it'll almost certainly happen one day and I doubt that day is more than 3 or 4 decades away at the most.

A rolling disk gathers no MOS.

Working...