Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I love it when the IEEE... (Score 2) 48

by Em Adespoton (#47786035) Attached to: IEEE Guides Software Architects Toward Secure Design

It took me a while to parse your comment... as the IEEE is an international standards body. Then I realized that you weren't talking about nation states, but half of the party system in the US... and then was lost again figuring out how a standards body pushing a security standard for SAs related to political gerrymandering in the US. Did you mean that the Republican party of the US is intentionally trying to make the Internet less secure, and that an international standards body setting down guidelines for big business to follow when architecting new software designs would somehow annoy them because somehow people would suddenly be required to use such standards to develop software like SSL/LTSP/SSH/etc?

Comment: Re: Official Vehicles (Score 1) 256

by Em Adespoton (#47785015) Attached to: DoT Proposes Mandating Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communications

If I'd stated that damage on impact was polynomial, I would have been technically correct, but would have drawn blank stares, even on slashdot. Plus, x^1 is polynomial technically. Squared would have been more accurate, but would have just made the sentence more complicated.

So I'll leave the pedantry up to the responses, and let people understand the implication based on what I originally said.

+ - Magnetic stimulation boosts memory in people->

Submitted by sciencehabit
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "Our memories are annoyingly glitchy. Names, dates, birthdays, and the locations of car keys fall through the cracks, losses that accelerate at an alarming pace with age and in neurodegenerative diseases. Now, by applying electromagnetic pulses through the skull to carefully targeted brain regions, researchers have found a way to boost memory performance in healthy people. The new study sheds light on the neural networks that support memories and may lead to therapies for people with memory deficits, researchers say."
Link to Original Source

+ - Fraunhofer's Google Glass App Detects Human Emotions in Real Time->

Submitted by Zothecula
Zothecula (1870348) writes "Over a number of years, researchers at Germany's Fraunhofer Institute have developed software to measure human emotion through face detection and analysis. Dubbed SHORE (Sophisticated High-speed Object Recognition), the technology has the potential to aid communication for those with disabilities. Now the team has repurposed the software as an app for Google Glass, with a view to bringing its emotion-detecting technology to the world."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:I'm all for it... (Score 1) 3

by Em Adespoton (#47780457) Attached to: The downside of police having cameras

I'd put this slightly differently -- the same situations where you wouldn't want Google Glass are the ones where you probably wouldn't want a police officer looking around. However, I don't see the bodycam as violating any more rights than the officer already does -- we just give the officer an exemption in exchange for safety/security -- NOT in exchange for privacy; that's the realm of security guards.

So yeah; if a police officer is somewhere/doing something they don't have a reason to do, I want the bodycam. If they've got nothing to hide, the bodycam's not going to add much more to the equation.

Comment: Re:Depend on faith? (Score 1) 206

by Em Adespoton (#47780305) Attached to: Canada Tops List of Most Science-Literate Countries

I think what the question really shows is that Canadians have a much stronger grasp of the English language, and don't see a few buzzwords and ignore the context. It's one thing to "walk by faith and not by sight" but quite another to think that we depend too much on knowledge (science = knowledge... scientific method or scientists are different kettles of poutine).

+ - The downside of police having cameras 3

Submitted by Presto Vivace
Presto Vivace (882157) writes "Why do we object to people wearing Google Glass but call for police to be equiped with cameras? True wearing a camera would make it more difficult for officers to lie (unless the camera accidentaly breaks). But just as Google Glass picks up everything — so would a police offier's camera. Do we want that?"

Comment: Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (Score 1) 83

by Em Adespoton (#47777469) Attached to: $33 Firefox Phone Launched In India

Which part of India are you in? My info is all second/third hand, but I'm not talking about the cities or surrounding areas -- that's why I made the comment about the Nokia phones for those areas.

Any way you look at it, Nokia rules the airwaves, and smartphones will still be for the richer, unless the prices continue to come down. But some people I've talked to have indeed switched from TV to smartphone, and that's in the city outskirts. If they want to see a sporting event, etc. they go to a friend's place.

Comment: Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (Score 2) 83

by Em Adespoton (#47770727) Attached to: $33 Firefox Phone Launched In India

And yet... that 80% mark is probably correct to some degree. Some villages only have one cell phone that everyone shares, but in the cities, that's how people communicate.

So think of it as each person in India putting out $1100 for their phone, which they use in lieu of land line, TV and computer. Assuming it lasts as long as the Nokia phones they used to have, I can see this getting a high adoption rate, with a new phone, say, every 5 years.

Comment: Re:Official Vehicles (Score 2, Insightful) 256

by Em Adespoton (#47770001) Attached to: DoT Proposes Mandating Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communications

You've got this 100% backwards. Deciding to drive slower than everyone else makes you a much bigger risk than the people driving the same speed. If the speed at which most drivers are comfortable on a road is too high for safety the road system itself (which includes signage and surroundings) has been designed incorrectly and should be corrected.

Correct -- the problem occurs when that person at the front of the line suddenly drives slower, due to hitting something, not being able to react in time, seeing the traffic light at the last minute, etc.

There are a few things that affect how fast people SHOULD drive -- intersection timings (get rid of intersections, they're unsafe, and there are better soltuions), road engineering, weather, driver alertness/reflexes, chances of some obstruction such as a child suddenly veering onto the road, and people doing stupid things.

Unfortunately, you can't fix the last one.

What gets me is NOT people driving over the limit, but people rushing to the next intersection when it's obvious they'll stop at the same light I will, people inside my 2 second react-time zone (that means if you're going faster than the limit, you should be giving other cars MORE room, not less), and people who just don't understand the laws of physics.

When you speed up a car, damage on impact is exponential, not linear. Also, cars react differently on different surfaces when braking, and people's reaction times have a limit. Many cities are lazy with their speed limits, and you can often find roads that, barring stupid drivers, are safe to drive at significantly higher speeds.

But again, you can't fix stupid, so the limits get normalized. It doesn't matter how good a driver you are, the limits are there to protect you from the intersection of your reaction speed and vehicle's mass+coefficient of friction, and the other person who did something idiotic that you didn't expect.

There are often reasons road speeds are set low that are way beyond how safe the road surface is for traffic to drive on at higher speeds, and those other reasons often can't be corrected, whereas a speed limit can be easily adjusted.

Comment: Re:Official Vehicles (Score 1) 256

by Em Adespoton (#47769907) Attached to: DoT Proposes Mandating Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communications

Besides, who cares how your speeding is detected? If you're speeding you're speeding. There's no "it's ok as long as I don't get caught"-clause.

I agree with you 98%. The system must detect if it's on public roads or private property, and also the flow of traffic (if traffic is going fast, you probably should go fast, too). I agree that our laws need to be obeyed even if there's little chance of getting caught.

We're talking V2V here -- unless the vehicle is able to read signs, I can't see the data containing more than GPS location, direction of travel, rate of accelleration. It'll still get a bunch wrong, but it'll see the cars you can't while sitting in the left hand turn lane.

What you're talking about is more like a V2N (Vehicle to network) system, where your car is always reporting what it is doing to some other location.

"Now here's something you're really going to like!" -- Rocket J. Squirrel