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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Fixed it for you. (Score 1, Funny) 379

When a woman gets married and has children, her whole life changes. Her husband is no longer the focus of her life, her children are. She loses interest in sex, and doesn't see why she should have to do it any more. If she wants another child, sure, but otherwise not. To her, it's just one more person who wants something from her at the end of a long day at work, and this one she can actually say "no" to. So, she does.

Meanwhile, the husband, cut completely off from one source of sex he is allowed to have, grows increasingly desperate and unhappy.

Okay, sorry for the tangent, but: how on Earth are people from the year 1958 managing to make posts on Slashdot that show up today? How are they even getting a bloody net connection back then?

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 161

Child molesters: If someone calls in a report of a known child molester or a person acting suspiciously, you need police out there to investigate, not a drone zapping people from the air. If someone is running away with a kidnapped child, my "car chase, fast response" example above applies. Now, if you're talking about trying to keep drones in the sky 24-7 tracking the movements of all known child molesters, that's something that should be mandated by a court, not police officers just going off and doing. That's as intrusive as a court-ordered ankle tracking bracelet, and should be treated with no less seriousness.

Drunk drivers attacking police officers: I can't even envision how your mind is factoring drones into this situation. Are you proposing that drones make traffic stops instead of police officers?

Or maybe I'm misreading your post. Was that sarcasm? I can't even tell anymore.

Comment So... (Score 4, Interesting) 161

... So we're talking about poorly regulated government officials using flying robots to spy on and electro-paralyze people from the air.

How exactly is this not a dystopian sci-fi novel come to life?

Don't get me wrong, I think civil use of drones can be a great thing. Even police use of drones - tracking vehicles during a car chase, fast response to a breakin or robbery, etc. But this is just ridiculous.

Comment Re:Use RTGs for ion propulsion then comm. (Score 1) 76

First off, you say "dust lodged in the lungs" as if that's a good thing. It's an intensive alpha emitter. Check out how miniscule of quantities of radon (another alpha emitter) it takes to pose a health threat. But yes, most plutonium dioxide ingested in that form passes through (not without irradiating the digestive tract first, of course); the ingestion route is more hazardous for more soluble forms of plutonium.

Comment Re:And the timeframe for getting another probe (Score 1) 76

Venus has an incredibly hospitable environment... in the cloudtops. Vastly more hospitable than the surface of Mars. And with how little we know about Venus, even something that doesn't land could completely revolutionize our understanding of the planet.

A higher budget mission could use a ballooning lander that makes repeated descents to the surface, then rises to recharge its batteries and let its coolant chill back down. Wherein it would be far more of a "rover" than anything we have ever sent to Mars - it could explore the whole planet.

Comment Re:Opt-In (Score 2) 231

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) 231

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) 231

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) 231

"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) 231

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) 231

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) 231

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?

Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.

Working...