Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Not surprising (Score 2, Insightful) 480

by squiggleslash (#47759003) Attached to: California DMV Told Google Cars Still Need Steering Wheels

I've been wondering that too.

The point of driverless cars is supposed to be a way to get us to that utopian transportation vision where we can go anywhere automatically by telling our transportation device where we want to go. This has been "possible" for decades but for one problem: all proposed systems required new tracks/roads be built that were separated from the current road system. That's prohibitively expensive. So in walks Google, and a few others, and says "We have all this technology, let's create something that interoperates with existing traffic on existing roads."

And they do some demos, and everyone thinks they've solved the problem.

Only they haven't. Google's cars, for example, have to drive on a "virtual track". There are holes in the track. Some of them are holes in the map, others are temporary detours and or obstacles that means the cars are unable to navigate them because it doesn't have enough information. To make driverless cars "work" as well as they appear to do at all across the whole country, Google is going to have to keep a constant, updated by the minute, map of the entire US road system, not just the official roads, but the private roads, the position of every driveway, etc.

So the DMV's comments aren't actually entirely out of order. Forget emergencies, you will have to take over every few hundred miles, assuming Google can update its databases to some decent compromise between up-to-the-second and "good enough", simply because the cars are going to have problems continuing.

Me? I'd prefer we look at our transportation system again and ask if this is really what we want and need. And if we're going to continue legally mandating suburban development and banning urban development, perhaps we need to look into improving PRT technologies and making them work.

Comment: To save you pouring through forum comments... (Score 4, Informative) 248

by squiggleslash (#47756757) Attached to: New Windows Coming In Late September -- But Which One?

If I'm reading the Neowin thread, followed by the Neowin articles, properly, the "two windows" speculation thing appears to be because of this:

- In September, Microsoft will release a preview of Windows 9 called "Threshold" to Enterprise customers. The idea is that Enterprises (large corporations) need some time to prepare for the upgrade.

- Threshold is mostly feature complete, but lacks the more significant UI changes that Windows 9 will bring.

- Windows 9 will be released much later and will have significant UI upgrades as well as everything in Threshold.

Because these two versions of "Next generation Windows" have been floating around, some have thought that there are two different versions of Windows.

Comment: Re:Like buying from a car thief (Score 2) 92

by squiggleslash (#47755997) Attached to: Early Bitcoin User Interviewed By Federal Officers

The problem is that very often someone who thinks he is (or is) completely innocent will talk to the cops, and as a result the cops decide he's committed a crime, prosecute him, and he goes to jail. Here's an example of the scientist Thomas Butler

For those who don't want to click on the link, it describes a situation wherea man was prosecuted for lying to the FBI, after he caused a major alert by pretending some vials of plague bacteria had been stolen that, in fact, he'd accidentally destroyed.

I'm kind of wondering if that's the example the parent poster actually planned to use, or if he cut and pasted the wrong link. I'd have thought Bulter would have been aware of the consequences of pretending someone had stolen such a thing, that it would result in a major investigation, with a lot of resources wasted.

Comment: Re:Urgh (Score 4, Insightful) 489

Hate to break it to you, but nothing about socialism has anything to do with "occupational licensing". Socialism is simply about people cooperating with one another to work for the public good, which might be via the government, but can equally be in voluntary groups - the cooperative movement, for example, is considered socialist by virtually everyone, be they rabid anti-socialist or red hippie alike, yet has nothing to do with government. And let's not get started on unions... Robert Owen, considered by most the "Father of Socialism", had no government role at all in what he was working on, he'd be admired by many libertarians if it wasn't for that damned dirty S word blinkering them.

Part of the problem with the US right now is the propaganda has gotten so ridiculous that the word "socialism" has been redefined here to the point of meaninglessness. Most Americans seem to use it to mean "Anything the government does (that I don't like)". That's a silly definition, and if we want a meaningful discussion of the way the world should work, we need to eliminate it. "Anything the government does" has a variety of words to describe it already. And nobody in their right mind worships prisons, oil subsidies, or indeed the military-industrial complex, as examples of cases where people come together to work for the public good.

Comment: Re:Waaah. (Score 1) 334

by squiggleslash (#47735793) Attached to: New EU Rules Will Limit Vacuum Cleaners To 1600W

Electric kettles sell poorly here, and when I got here - though this changed around five years later - it was exceptionally difficult to find an automatic kettle (one that shuts off when the water starts boiling.)

And yeah, they do seem to take longer, though it's too early in the morning for me to figure out why, my sleeping head is thinking the halved voltage should mean double the amps through the element for the same wattage, making it hotter. (Or is that the problem, and as a result US heating elements need to have a lower resistance for the same wattage, and thus don't output as much heat?)

Comment: Re:Just let the investigations complete (Score 1) 6

by squiggleslash (#47719597) Attached to: What they want you to think

Eyewitnesses pretty much had consistent stories before the media circus started and while one biased, or two unbiased, eyewitnesses might be likely to be highly unreliable, when you start getting many (and 3U+1B seems many to me) all independently corroborating one another then you're getting into territory where only "Invisible gorilla" scenarios (and similar) start to play out in terms of their accounts being wrong. Ultimately it's hard to understand why witnesses would ignore some massive act of violence on the part of Brown.

Which is why I'm leaning towards something related to the door incident, as that was noticed at the time. I just don't quite understand, yet, the mechanism. And it doesn't really explain, however much in pain Wilson was, why he shot Brown if Brown subsequently ran and then put his hands up, as witnesses say.

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 734

by squiggleslash (#47712491) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I wrote my bullet points because I really couldn't believe you wrote what you just did. If I'm interpreting your response correctly, you either are embarassed by what you wrote and are trying to walk it back in a way that doesn't admit you made the mistake at all, or you're trolling. You certainly haven't attempted to clarify how my interpretation is incorrect.

You said: "every woman on Twitter who says anything remotely prominent stops getting hundreds of rape threats in response". This is ludicrous hyperbole, an attempt to foster moral panic.

No, it's a reasonable depiction of the current environment. You, thus far, have claimed it isn't because (1) you claimed only Valenti was getting the threats, and then, when it became clear that wasn't true, that (2) it was only "feminists" who were getting them (and somehow implied this isn't a problem then.)

I'm leaning towards the "I'm being trolled" hypothesis when it comes to your commentary. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but at this point I'd like you to start by:

- Agreeing that it's not just Valenti getting the threats of physical and sexual violence.
- That NOTHING Valenti has said justifies the threats of physical and sexual violence.
- That it is actually misrepresenting someone to post a picture of them wearing what's obviously a joke T-shirt and imply that it isn't a joke, rather than address directly what they've written.
- That the subset of threats of physical and sexual violence I've pointed you at directly were unjustified
- That Feminists do NOT deserve threats of physical and sexual violence.

Once you say, explcitly, the above, I'll respond. But based upon how you've commented thus far, I'm not interpreting it as anything other than how I've described, and I'm concerned you're not arguing in good faith.

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 734

by squiggleslash (#47711885) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I'll bullet point what I'm reading and you can tell me what I'm misunderstanding from your post, if anything:

- The women receiving rape threats are, in your view, Feminists, and so it's not an issue. You don't explain why it's OK if Feminists receive rape threats.
- Michele Malkin has never retweeted numerous death and rape threats despite widespread coverage when it happened. (She's probably a Feminist too, amirite?)
- Valenti has made a career of demonising men, as can be evidenced by one joke T-shirt, which is totally not misrepresenting her views because she wore it in public and even showed a picture of it online which nobody ever does with a joke shirt.
- You bringing up male suicides in response to someone complaining they're seeing more PCism because women online keep getting rape threats is not deflection. Me pointing out that it has nothing to do with the topic at hand is.


Here's the truth, which you appear to be completely unable to comprehend:

1. No, Valenti does not hate men, nor has she made a career of demonizing them. I've actually read some of Valenti's stuff, and while she says a lot of nonsense, most of the idiots complaining about misandry are the ones who respond to "Wouldn't it be nice if men didn't ${badthing} women" with "Not all men ${badthing}" despite the fact the sentence was never "It's terrible that ALL MEN ${badthing} women, it should stop!"
2. No, Valenti is not the only one getting rape threats.
3. Sorry to bring up Valenti again, as this issue has nothing to do with her save for her being one of the numerous victims, but asking about the existence of subsidized tampons should not result in you receiving threats of physical and sexual violence, including rape.
4. Thinking it would be nice to have Jane Austin on a banknote does not mean you deserve to be threatened with physical and sexual violence, including rape. Jane Austin is fucking awful, but that is a disproportionate response. BTW, that wasn't Valenti. Valenti is not the receipient of all or most of the rape threats.
5. Even hating liberals should not make you a target for threats of physical or sexual violence.
6. Politely asking men not to hit on women in public spaces like cons should not make you a target for threats of physical or sexual violence. In fact. Rebecca's request was an entirely reasonable one regardless of your views on women.
7. Actually, pretty much no action should result in you getting those threats. None. Not even over-reacting to men making sexist jokes behind you in a way that gets both one of them and yourself fired.

Comment: Re:Just let the investigations complete (Score 1) 6

by squiggleslash (#47711591) Attached to: What they want you to think

That is interesting, and it'd be interesting to see a version of events that explains both the injury and the eyewitnesses apparently not noticing anything that would explain it. The only thing that springs to mind is that reportedly Wilson opened his car door in such a way that it hit or came close to Brown, whereupon it slammed back (either pushed by Brown or bouncing off him) into Wilson.

Still, that's a lot of damage for a door "bouncing".

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 734

by squiggleslash (#47711089) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Can I suggest that you actually follow the discussion rather than picking whatever the latest thing you heard and thinking that's what everyone's talking about?

No, it"s not just about Valenti. And no, lots of women, prominent and otherwise, are finding that when they post anything mildly controversial, they get rape threats.

Finally, even if your attempt to misrepresent one columnist using a zero-context photo had legitimacy and didn't misrepresent her, it wouldn't support rape threats against her.

Michele Malkin regularly gets rape threats against her. The woman routinely lies, and smears those who disagree with her. She's a horrible, horrible, person. Whatever Valenti has said pales in comparison. And Malkin she doesn't deserve rape and violence threats either.

And nobody's committed suicide, NOBODY, because they felt they were unable to issue a rape threat against an uppity woman who they disagreed with, so why bring it up?

Comment: Re:Big Data (Score 1) 181

by squiggleslash (#47710909) Attached to: Netflix CEO On Net Neutrality: Large ISPs Are the Problem

You're supposing that the DRM is there merely to appease Hollywood. Ever consider the possibility that Hastings might not want their customers downloading movies for watching two years after their subscriptions have expired?

As for offline viewing (something others are mentioning in response as a thing-you-can't-do-because-DRM), Amazon has that. Rhapsody too (albeit for music.) The files are DRM'd too. Netflix can implement offline viewing with the DRM being used to restrict the timeframe used to view the files. Hollywood is probably the reason they don't, but not because of the insistence on DRM.

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 734

by squiggleslash (#47710893) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Hm. So either allow females full control over every aspect of the shared male/female environment or support sending death and rape threats to random women who speak their mind?

I don't think anyone anywhere mainstream is making you make that choice. Rather the idea of the story is that prejudice has little or no place in rational discourse, and that includes blatant misogyny and sexism. Why? Because it isn't rational, and because it leads to horror.

FWIW, I find myself, as I get older, having less and less respect for women as a group (as individuals, of course, everyone deserves to be treated on their own merits), but even as I veer towards misogyny myself, I find it completely ridiculous that we should continue to tolerate a situation where members of one gender - the other being more or less free to say anything - is targeted for frightening abuse up to and including rape and death threats whenever said women speaks their mind on anything remotely controversial, and frequently on topics that shouldn't be controversial at all.

We are not Iran. Hell, Iran is not Iran.

It's fine to say Jane Austin sucks and shouldn't be on a banknote. It adds nothing to the debate, however, to say women shouldn't be on banknotes, and tt's not OK to post rape threats against Caroline Criado-Perez.

Why did the Roman Empire collapse? What is the Latin for office automation?