Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:make human drivers illegal (Score 1) 327

by Monchanger (#41232549) Attached to: Networked Cars: Good For Safety, Bad For Privacy

You talk like machines are infallible. They're not. They're designed and programmed by humans after all.

Perfect example of why machines would do a better job at driving. Your comment is typical of humanity at its worst: emotional, quick to judge, irrational, and suffering from both a terrible lack of wisdom and a disturbing amount of over-confidence.

Machines are designed by people, yes, but they aren't granted any negative traits. Nobody will ever design a car which will give a damn if you cut it off, honk at it, or display a political bumper sticker. No program would include random events like a fight with an ex-wife, or "a case of the Mondays". An algorithm will take all relevant data, nothing else, perform calculations to maximize efficiency and safety (including many never-ignored safety measures as mentioned by others above), and execute those with clockwork precision. Not only that but it will do so in direct collaboration with other vehicles using unambiguous communication conveying clear intentions. It will be studied, analyzed, debated, implemented, iterated and improved ad infinitum. It's not about wishy-washy "feeling safe", it's about concrete and measurable improvement.

PS- Traffic isn't safer. Cars are safer. Big difference. Only the machines have improved, while humans have gotten worse.

Comment: Re:make human drivers illegal (Score 1) 327

by Monchanger (#41232405) Attached to: Networked Cars: Good For Safety, Bad For Privacy
WTF? "Control over physical movement"? Nobody is stopping you from going anywhere you like. Only freeing you from the mind-numbingly mundane task of navigating and inching through gridlock. If you feel that's "suffocation of the mind" and that driving counts as "involvement in life", you've got way bigger problems than robotic vehicles.

Comment: Re:Spin right round baby... (Score 1) 550

by Monchanger (#40894927) Attached to: Is Your Neighbor a Democrat? There's an App For That

Republicans remain the Jesus party,

They are no longer. The Tea Party is directing activity to a saner direction, basically fiscal responsibility and shrinking government.

You haven't been paying attention. The current House has spent half its time trying to stop abortion. The other half has been spent making empty gestures by "repealing" the ACA over thirty times despite it obviously being an exercise in futility. Its other "accomplishments"? The US credit rating has been damaged, and we're on track to a devastating sequestration.

Please explain to us how this is a more sane government. Einstein's quote suggests these are textbook examples of the exact opposite.

Comment: Re:A good reason to go independent (Score 1) 550

by Monchanger (#40892243) Attached to: Is Your Neighbor a Democrat? There's an App For That
Well put. The act of informing the public that private interests have this access is a huge plus. The FEC has made it very easy to search by contributor name on its website. In a democratic society all citizens should have access to such information, not just those with money or connections.

If people have a problem with the privacy regulation, their issue is with the campaign finance system, not a specific campaign. This issue has been raised for years now, so do your homework. But try not to get swept up by the silly notions that secret contributions, regardless of amount, are a lesser evil. I highly recommend checking out the related ideas of Prof. Lawrence Lessig and the Republican candidate you've never heard of- Buddy Roemer. They discussed just this issue a week or two ago in their congressional testimony (it's on C-SPAN).

Comment: Re:No they are not forced.... (Score 1) 216

by Monchanger (#40299747) Attached to: House of Commons Could Force Social Networks To Identify Trolls

You've not read the bill. It doesn't deal with criminality. It doesn't outlaw libel or harassment. It doesn't, as you've suggested, "Amending it how? To add "on a computer" to the list of places you can't commit libel or slander?" It doesn't even contain the word "computer".

(1) 20This section applies where an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.

That's a civil action. Not a criminal one. In fact, the criminal laws were repealed a couple years ago. Your reply was the only non sequitur in this thread.

So cocky and arrogant, you. You've said your peace so nobody else's matters, eh? Such dangerous traits in those who presume to have a superior opinion, when in fact they're as ignorant as they come. Shit, you couldn't even bother to answer my reply. You just tried to change the subject (while flip-flopping on your position, no less) to avoid appearing like the argumentative prick you are. If you can't be bothered with facts or reality, go post your rantings on extremist YouTube videos like a good lunatic.

Comment: Re:No they are not forced.... (Score 1) 216

by Monchanger (#40297173) Attached to: House of Commons Could Force Social Networks To Identify Trolls

Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."

All iserlohn said was "need some sort of law". If you agree on the point of a law's necessity, where exactly is the disagreement?

Is your objection purely with regards to the legal code's table of contents? That would seem a little pedantic to me. If the old law didn't provide for something you now want, you can't avoid passing an Act in Parliament, or a Bill in Congress. Whether you want to call these a "new law" or a "correction" isn't important. Especially in England, where I believe the law has never been codified, so there would not even be a technical difference.

Comment: Re:AOL Offices (Score 1) 141

by Monchanger (#40124829) Attached to: 19-Year-Old Squatted At AOL For 2 Months

not to defend AOL, but it is really NOT their responsibility to determine whether their service is needed by their customers.. but rather to provide the services the customer subscribes to -- which is what AOL does. similarly, if you subscribe to cable tv but then install a satellite dish, it is YOUR job to cancel the cable if you no longer need or want it - the cable company can't read your mind, YOU have to return their equipment and cancel the service (or pay the bill, or suffer the consequences of doing neither)

Begging your pardon, but that's a sniveling shit-pile of an excuse for a company to hide behind.

The question isn't one of legal responsibility* and consequences. It's one of service and this sort of activity by companies, of charging people who they know are receiving zero services from them, is morally bankrupt If you want to run a business that provides a service, please do, but if you keep billing people for nothing, there's no difference between that and stealing. Even those few idiots still holding AOL stock should agree that never signing on new customers is not a proper business model (doubly so when your existing customer base is dying off).

One of my main objections to automatic payments and paperless billing is exactly this kind of prevalent attitude- that a company will take as much money from me, whether or not I'm actually using their service. Companies I can't trust will just have to keep paying for outdated collection systems. At the moment that's all of them, except for two publicly-owned utilities. You want to know why I might be more than happy to opt for a non-profit Internet service, or (Friedman forbid) government-run? This is why- because the private sector keeps proving it can't resist the temptation to rip people off,

* Yes, legally, the customer is solely responsible for terminating the contract, blah blah blah. But only a soulless lawyer will suggest that has any bearing on the correctness of such an attitude, and even he'll remind you that forgetfulness isn't a contract. One report on Brokaw and your revenue could plummet so fast that no judge could keep your business from falling apart.

Comment: Re:There's no starship with just an ion drive (Score 2) 589

Fuck, Minnesota just passed plans to build a new Vikings stadium for a cost of around a billion dollars. What were these 'priorities' you were talking about again?

Michele Bachmann has to prove how American she is somehow. What better way than max out the credit card on football?

Comment: Re:Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (Score 1) 488

by Monchanger (#39957951) Attached to: Israel Passes Photoshop Law To Combat Anorexia

"Thought"? No. You heard wrong. Israel isn't the "colonial" state the anti-Semites claim, and you should be more careful where you get your information.

Israel benefits from cheap Arab labor in agriculture, but that's pretty much it- only a few percent of the economy. Israel's GDP is heavily based on technology, for which the territories are useless. Tourism yields benefits to both sides depending on tourist site location, but primarily to Israel which controls the better and more secure accommodations in Western Jerusalem, as well as the Sea of Galilee.

Comment: Re:Hard in the US (Score 1) 488

by Monchanger (#39955019) Attached to: Israel Passes Photoshop Law To Combat Anorexia

Silly is how absolutely naive that was. Lying is the basis of advertising- an industry whose raison d'être is to make you buy something you wouldn't want to otherwise.

False advertising laws don't restrict lies, but only certain types of lies. The kind you suggested is not among those and easily circumvented using the word 'cool people drink X'.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A guinea pig is not from Guinea but a rodent from South America.

Working...