Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Slippery slope, blame the driver (Score 1) 382

Just to clarify: I probably wasn't clear what I meant by "slippery slope." I mean that if we say it is okay to blame the manufacturer for not providing pedestrian detection, then we open up manufacturers to all sorts of law suits as more autonomous features are added. Eventually, every error could be traced back to something the device could have known but didn't. "Oh, it should have known that grandpa took that pill already." You bring up another angle. What if grandpa really did need another pill and the bottle refused to open?

Comment: Slippery slope, blame the driver (Score 2) 382

This is a slippery slope. We must hold the driver accountable.

*All* cars today will confidently drive into a people. Most of them only do so by moving forward or backward in whatever direction they are pointed. The fact that this car has a button that backs up, does a little turn, then pulls forward does NOT change the chain of responsibility. Ex: Suppose my car has a button that drives forward 10 feet, honks, spins around, then drives backward 10 feet. Can I blame the manufacturer when I hit the button and run someone over? We can't let that become the standard.

Oh, did my drone just gun down a bunch of children? Blame Boeing, their bid for the child detection feature was too expensive! -- I DON'T THINK SO FOLKS!

Question: Does the brake still work in self-park mode?

Comment: Re:Economics is a science! (Score 2) 335

by MobyDisk (#49718689) Attached to: Stock Market Valuation Exceeds Its Components' Actual Value

In their defense, it is because eEconomics perfectly follows t his Douglas Adams quote:

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

As soon as an algorithm is created that can accurately predict the market, investors will start using it, thus altering the market so the algorithm no longer works.

This kind of economic theory is really attaching a name and a measurement system to a phenomena that is already understood. To say the Q-value predicts bubbles is a bit backwards since the Q-value is defined in terms of bubbles. So it really isn't a predictor of anything, any more than a ruler is a predictor of the length of an object or a scale is a predictor of the weight of an object.

Comment: Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" (Score 4, Insightful) 142

by MobyDisk (#49686833) Attached to: House Votes To End Spy Agencies' Bulk Collection of Phone Data

I'm reading... but it is like reading a patch file for a language I don't understand, when I don't have the file that is being patched.

(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking “an order” and inserting “an order or emergency production”; and

That might as well be:

Go to line 57 and insert "else break;"

It looks like they are trying to say that, in order to bulk collect data, they must have a specific search they are running that involves a specific telephone line. See SEC 201.

Can someone define "tangible things" as in "SEC. 103. Prohibition on bulk collection of tangible things" or "“(i) Emergency authority for production of tangible things."

Comment: Re:I understood some of those words (Score 4, Insightful) 67

by MobyDisk (#49685253) Attached to: New Device Could Greatly Improve Speech and Image Recognition

I would come here more often if orasio wrote the summaries.

The problem with the summary is that it assumes the reader is already familiar with the device. Your summary does not suffer from that problem. For instance "prototype eight-terminal device consisting of a magnetic matrix with micro-antennas to excite and detect the spin waves." WHAT spin waves? What is a terminal in this context and why is the a key thing in the summary? The summary already presupposes too much, even for a technical news site.

On the flip side, it would be nice if you didn't also insult the person who asked for clarification. The summary is indeed confusing.

+1 for insightful explanation.
-1 for being an asshat about it.

Comment: Re:dreams over, the manifesto is dead. (Score 3, Insightful) 371

by MobyDisk (#49675841) Attached to: Firefox 38 Arrives With DRM Required To Watch Netflix

DRM = encryption + key obfuscation.

If DRM was merely encryption that would be great. Then we could save the encrypted streams to our hard disk, then play them while on vacation. Or we could copy those encrypted streams for time shifting. We could decrypt them, then re-encode them into another format for playing on another device. Or take fair-use protected clips from them.

The goal of DRM is to prevent the the end-user from doing the things listed above. But encryption alone isn't enough to do that. You need a way to give the key to the user, but obfuscate the key so that they can only use it limited circumstances. It's infuriating to the user.

Comment: Put this in perspective (Score 2) 202

by MobyDisk (#49663611) Attached to: Study Reveals Wikimedia Foundation Is 'Awash In Money'

Before getting alarmed about numbers with no context, take a look at Charity Navigator. Compare The Wikimedia foundation with your favorite charity and see how they look.

Charity navigator rates the Wikimedia foundation as 4/4 stars. The system they use is quite fascinating: the site is generates the numbers mathematically from non-profit tax filings. What the site doesn't tell you is if the charity is actually doing good work. If a charity's goal is to feed babies to demons, and they do it efficiently, they will get good marks.

Good day to avoid cops. Crawl to work.