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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:If it's published, it must be true? (Score 1) 174

At the same time, just like in any group, there are "bad" researchers and "good" researchers, and the ones performing due diligence and trying to be upstanding can still have a bad day.

The primary focus was to point out that even a scientific journal is not without fault, and there are even some that have been known to accept and promote complete drivel that was created intentionally to point out how flawed the scientific journal system can be in some places.

The general idea is not to make the researchers seem malicious. The intent is to point out that just because it's published doesn't mean it's true, and in this case it's taking it even further than the prior shows of failure that occurred with "Pay to be published" journals.

Comment: Bad summary! No cookie! (3D Computer vision) (Score 5, Informative) 141

by KitFox (#48787051) Attached to: 3D Cameras Are About To Go Mainstream

This is definitely a case of picking the worst summary of the source article possible. When I looked at the /. summary, I immediately thought "3D is going out in movies and TV, and haven't we been there with the HTC Evo 3D?". Obviously a lot of other people did too.

So I clicked on TFA. Ahhhhhhhh... Now it makes more sense! From TFA:

We're used to our gadgets being passive objects. They respond to typed or tapped commands, but we don't expect them to be aware of their surroundings.

... As our devices have more and better sensors, they're going to be increasingly aware of the world around them, and will interact with the world and with us in more sophisticated ways.

So other than the really gimmicky "personal drones that can take breathtaking aerial shots", this is primarily talking about computer vision, such as gesture recognition, local environment evaluation, etc.

Comment: Re:They'll have to get a LOT better much faster (Score 1) 405

Except a decade ago, you got 95% on a powerful desktop computer. Today you get 95% on a cellphone.

If I sit in a quiet room, and enunciate carefully, with slight pauses between words, I can get way better than 95%. Also, if voice recognition is integrated with a camera focused on the speaker's face, accuracy can go way up.

Well, of course. A cell phone now is the same power as a powerful desktop computer back then for the most part. But wasn't "Natural speech recognition" the big goal? They did call it "Dragon Naturallyspeaking" after all. However it still sits in a state where the computer needs to have a perfect environment to achieve something partially as good as a human being.

I counter-propose that humans will be helping computers more in the future.

Comment: Re:...the same company that predicted that OS/2... (Score 2) 405

Are you implying their predictions have as much clarity as an obsidian crystal ball in a sewage treatment tank? As much fidelity as a wax cylinder on a 120 degree day in Arizona? As much accuracy as somebody trying to blindly roundhouse kick the Andromeda Galaxy? And hold as much water as a clogged ink jet nozzle? If you are, I agree.

Comment: They'll have to get a LOT better much faster (Score 1) 405

With voice recognition still doing well at 95% accuracy when trained (an average of one in twenty words wrong? Sign me up!) - which was about what it was back a decade ago - and the essay grading systems being very good at what they do (Sarcasm alert), they'll have to improve things a lot faster than they have been for the machines to take over 'knowledge work'.

Comment: Re:Whatever happens... (Score 1) 191

by KitFox (#47992321) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How To Keep Students' Passwords Secure?

I'm the technology manager at a school but beholden to a larger "Management" company for a lot of my processes. In our case, we can't afford to issue laptops or tablets or Chromebooks to students, however it is absolutely true that we have access to everything everybody does on school computers. This includes students and to some portion, teachers. We tell everybody straight out with big, bold text that we have access, but people do stuff anyway.

Tuesday, a new employee got onto his computer for the first time and within five minutes I had an alert that he'd downloaded a "flash-installer.exe" infection when he'd managed to find a porn site that wasn't blocked by our filter. He was fired within five minutes, because a trace showed that it was obvious intent, not accident.

On the student side of things, we are required by law to report things, and it is not often thankfully, but we have been alerted by monitoring software that a student was being solicited by an adult for illegal activities. The student logged into their personal GMail account from school and typed in a reply. All captured and monitored and observed. More common is catching online bullying.

In general, it does show just how much access we have and why we have such extremely strong language in our alerts to say "Yes, we can see EVERYTHING." Also one of the reasons we are reluctant to issue take-home equipment to students because of blasted cameras and no desire to even tempt anybody.

Comment: Re:My proposal (Score 1) 113

by KitFox (#47953453) Attached to: Data Archiving Standards Need To Be Future-Proofed

I propose storing it in a new medium. A "molecular chain", which should withstand the effects of EMP, right?
A name for it. Hmmm. How about the Destroy-Not Archive, or D.N.A. for short.

But then cosmic rays and ionizing radiation and other things will still introduce errors.

So we would further need a method to reliably store the chains themselves and that could replicate the data to ensure there was a high chance of accurate data surviving. Little cartridges with all of the necessary environment and materials to power the reading system and maintain the chain and that could, as needed, replicate the data into new cartridges. The second versions, Contained Environment II (CE-II) work decently.*

(*Hey, I couldn't think of anything with L. I guarantee I gave it at least four seconds of thought too!)

Comment: Re:The comment. (Score 1) 112

by KitFox (#47699355) Attached to: Financial Services Group WCS Sues Online Forum Over Negative Post

That's because you are most likely an intelligent person working for a company that is unlikely to pull dumb stunts and so the mere concept of the depths of the stupidity that some companies harbor in the name of "RoI" and "Risk vs Profit" is completely foreign to you. Hopefully you will be able to continue to stay unknowing, as the reality is ruddy scary.

Here is a small example: "Let's give WORSE customer service. We will make them wait for one hour on hold for very basic tech support, then anything that can't be handled in under five minutes will wait another hour. During all this time, we'll push fixing for them if they pay us. That way we monetize support of our product!" "Won't that make us lose customers like blood from a femoral artery?" "Yep! We've already gone down from seven million customers to four million!" *Six months later* "We're at two million customers, we've made a killing off 'premium' support, and we've remained profitable by massaging the books to write off the losses, and now we completely reverse it, doing everything really well." *twelve more months* "We're at eight million customers now. But instead of that being a 14% increase in customer base from 1.5 years ago, that is a 400% increase in customer base from one year ago! And because the 75% loss was within a certain frame, we didn't have to report any loss in customers. Watch the funding roll in, guys! This is what I'm talking about!"

Sad. But true. Which makes it even more sad.

Comment: Re:Dead as a profit source for Symantec, well, ... (Score 2) 331

by KitFox (#47689491) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Dead Is Antivirus, Exactly?

The management company where I work mandates Sophos. Scans once a week and I get weekly tickets during the scan about computers running so slow that nothing can be done. When it was Sophos only, Sophos caught about 20-30 items a week and I had to reimage or repair about two computers a week from infections or Sophos-caused issues.

Now for the past year the 250 systems still use Sophos because corporate says they have to, but the site also uses Webroot. ~800k full installer for Webroot, 2-minute scans that nobody ever notices running, and not a single need to reimage or repair. Webroot catches about 90-120 items a week above what Sophos catches. CryptoLocker (and crypt-alikes) have struck about seven times IIRC and Webroot's journalling simply restored the damaged data on the local system as part of the cleanup process. Mind you, Webroot didn't detect the crypto malware immediately. There was a decent amount of encryption performed prior to Webroot catching it due to the encryption process itself.

So obviously some companies can do it right. Non-intrusive scanning, only scanning what actually needs to be scanned to protect that computer, action journalling and rollbacks, and a {censored}ing tiny application. Symantec and the others just need to do it right and people need to stop believing that "rebuilding three PCs due to virus attack" is good while I think that rebuilding zero is the only acceptable solution.

Comment: Re:What about (Score 2) 234

by KitFox (#47504107) Attached to: Verizon Boosts FiOS Uploads To Match Downloads

Given that Lvel3 and Verizon are currently holding PR-offs over their peering, this may be related to that. Verizon says "The peering is not symmetrical so L3 should pay us for all the data they are pushing [sic] over our network." L3's response is that Verizon is NOT a symmetrical peer and never can be because their end is full of consumers that pull more data and don't even have upload capability as fast as the download capability.

Verizon's solution? This change, then say "Look! We're symmetrical! Now pay us to push traffic!"

Dead? No excuse for laying off work.