Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:should be interesting (Score 5, Interesting) 327

There's a reason why Sweden has one of the highest rape rates in the world and it's not because there are that many actual rapes going on.

But it is somewhat amusing to watch the racists and the feminists fight over it, as the racists claim it's because the immigrants and the feminists have to constantly switch their realities back and forth between 'it's only a statistical issue' and 'but rape is everywhere!', depending on the situation...

But yes, if you read the original police documents, the purpose of going to the police was to force an STD test. That the US was involved I rather doubt, as any borderline chargeable offense will automatically be pushed by the police and prosecution whether the supposed victim wants it or not it's quite enough that an activist prosecutor like Marianne Ny smells some publicity and the opportunity to 'send a message' to start that chain of events and completely screw up the victims life far beyond the original issue. Hopefully Ny's utter incompetence in this has put a permanent black mark on her career.

Comment Re:Already here (Score 2) 412

'In some way or another' probably refers to the various general social security systems that are in place. Technically it pretty much should be hard to starve in many European countries. In practice, many 'normal' will probably kill themselves rather than go through the hoops necessary to ensure payout, while exploiters can make a very decent living off abusing the systems.

Personally I'm in favour of universial basic income, provided all other benefits are removed at the same time. You get what you get, and no, that won't let you live in a decent area of a major city, there won't be any extra payout for special needs, etc.

I think the reason it won't end up done in Europe for a long time is simply that the welfare dependents, their organisations and the welfare administration workers will oppose it. Far too many special interest groups who'd stand to lose a lot.

Comment Re:Complicated (Score 1) 69

And if docker means you're going to spend more time managing OS level instances, then any savings on hardware are often eaten within weeks of deployment. Shared systems are a PITA if there's any need to coordinate between multiple users of those systems at all.

The fact is, I suspect the only way to avoid triggering manpower costs while implementing docker currently in a large company is basically to deploy it on a one-container-per-OS-image basis. Basically as an application packaging method. Which of course means there won't be any cost reduction on hardware at all. But then again, nobody cares about that, which should be obvious from the lack of optimization in the actual software running.

Comment Live patching cloud? (Score 2) 52

If you need to live patch your kernel you've got a misdesigned application. Failures happen and if you can't design your application for redundancy, don't expect uninterrupted service.

If you need to live-patch kernels in your cloud infrastructure, you need to go back to the drawing board because you don't have a cloud, you have a SPOF.

Comment Re:make it user-selectable (Score 1) 235

I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm saying that when exercising good judgement, even humans drive to allow leeway for such things. If there's a car that weaves or sways, if it drives close to the lane separator, drives too fast, too slow, etc, you keep enough distance to be able to deal with any random behaviour by that car safely. When you know there are difficult short on-ramps and the lane beside you is free you switch lanes to let other drivers on without any risk of causing a problem situation. Humans do it when we're doing things right. An autonomous car could be programmed to always keep the optimal freedom of action.

"The difficult problem is that sometimes you don't get the luxury of doing that, and unexpected situations can be created faster than you're able to react."

Yes, but the way most traffic situations are designed, it's our big saver that it requires usually not one, but two persons making a mistake for an accident to happen. I've been saved from the consequences of being an idiot by someone else not being an idiot and planning for me being an idiot. And I've saved many others by noting that they're not paying attention and increasing distance, leaving them space to be stupid. Not to mention the number of lives that have been saved by traffic planners saying 'humans are idiots, lets make a roundabout here'. So, if an autonomous car can be programmed to not do the stupid things we do, what are the situations where the best response isn't simply 'make sure it doesn't get into such situations'? And could a human deal with them?

I mean, some things are impossible to deal with. You're not going to be able to handle things like a car going through a guard rail on the overpass and landing in your lane. Some things are more probable, but very hard to deal with as well, like someone deliberately arranging for a frontal collision in a higher speed countryside road. There simply aren't any safe trajectories or distances, so that can't be planned for, but that's not really a difficult decision but more trying to avoid the frontal, where the autonomous car would probably have an edge in reaction time and more accurate sensor feedback providing all viable physically possible options.

It's an interesting problem, but it's not entirely easy to figure out situations where our more complex reasoning skills will actually do us any good once the actual shit hits the fan, or if all situations where such reasoning skills may be of use are actually due to failing to use them earlier.

Comment Re:make it user-selectable (Score 1) 235

Indeed. But in that case you have planned your driving so you have, like you say, plenty room in front and behind of you, so you can safely brake or accelerate out of the way of the merger. You don't need to sideswipe someone, because you'd planned for such a situation. You avoid accidents by deliberately planning to be able to deal with dangerous, but physically possible, movement of everything else in the environment.

If your options end up being only really bad ones, you've made at least one, and probably a whole sequence of really bad decisions that have limited your possible actions. That's very human to do, I fiddle with the stereo while driving too fast with not enough distance in rush hour traffic with a lorry to the side with the best of them. But it's not something an autonomous car would have to do, so when comparing human driving with autonomous car driving it's better to use situations that an autonomous car would be as likely as a human to actually get in to, rather than the ones caused by our own bad judgement.

Comment Re:make it user-selectable (Score 2) 235

Why is there a car in the adjacent lane in a high-speed situation with objects that can conceivably exhibit behaviour that could cause in impact faster than you can do a controlled break? Sounds like you're driving too fast and tailgating someone while you're passing someone else. How about, you know, not doing that? Accident avoided.

The trick to avoid serious accidents is not to be able to make complex judgement calls in an emergency, humans suck at that, and life isn't Groundhog Day where you get to practice a dozen times 'til you get that call right. The trick to avoid serious accidents is to do your best to ensure you're in a controllable situation as much as possible. You should be keeping enough distance to be able to break when someone more than slams their breaks. You should keep enough clearance to be able to accelerate or decelerate if someone starts moving into your lane. You should keep excessive distance to cyclists or pass them at a controllable speed.

An autonomous car can keep safe margins far better than a human can, and it's much more capable to actually keep the situation within the actual limits of what it can deal with. Because, above all, it wont delude itself into thinking it can actually make perfect complex judgement calls within fractions of a second.

Comment Re:make it user-selectable (Score 3, Insightful) 235

If a child can run into the street from a blind spot faster than you can break, you're driving too fast. The autonomous car will not drive too fast to break in such a situation.

If the child is deliberately hiding in a place it shouldn't be, near a higher speed road and manages to quickly cross what should usually be a wide clear area around such roads (or in an unpopulated area), then there won't be time for a human to react at all. An autonomous car could probably cut down the speed a bit, but avoiding people who deliberately try to throw themselves in front of traffic simply isn't doable or even something to care that much about. You're not going to be able to avoid jumpers, or the human cannonball either, nor is an autonomous car. As the other reply pointed out, whether it's wildlife or people, usually the best option is to simply do a predictable controlled break unless it's basically a slow-motion situation playing out over many seconds (such as road conditions making braking very ineffective, while speed isn't particularly high).

Comment Re: Good for CMU. (Score 1) 72

Libertarianism doesn't require faith in that. The mix of people actually enjoying acting out of altruism and the situations where people acting for their own good inherently results in the good of the commons (competition, efficiency improvements) is enough for a lot of things and is quite demonstrable without any faith needed.

Comment Re:3x GHG emissions *per calorie* (Score 1) 340

Well, if you pave the area that the livestock occupies at least. Well, no, that doesn't work, you still need that area to catch carbon through vegetation. But you can't let something else eat the vegetation or they'll crap, breath and dissipate it again. So you need to sequestrate the vegetation. Better drench it in pesticides too so no insects consume it.

Hang on... that sounds like it's actually one of those ecological cycle thingamajiggies, it just could be that the actual problem is the input of sequestrated materials into the cycle rather than the particular point at which a specific carrier is recycled, as that will just get replaced by another carrier/emitter if the consumption point is moved.

Comment Re: It's not the Earth's fault (Score 1) 291

Yeah, you know, if you ask a human in 50000 years whether 'noon' means 'midday' or 'midnight', he'll say "zxyathslthe?" "blortpmi?".

With changes in the range of thousands of years, language will change orders of magnitude faster than the specific number we ascribe to 'noon'.

And yes, it is something you can easily ignore, as unless the human lifespan stretches into thousands of years, it's not like anyone's actually going to notice during their lifetime.

Comment Re: Academia is willing to protect total dicks (Score 1) 345

This problem is fixed by making consent explicit.

Yeah, see, the fact that you actually think that is one of the biggest problems I have with consent advocacy.

The problem is that in reality, mens rea means you don't have to have any actual consent, you just have to think you had consent. That means that consent law changes doesn't change what you seem to think it would change. As long as someone acts in a way the accused could interpret and motivate why they thought they had consent. And going along with it explicitly does mean that they are exhibiting behaviour interpretable as consent, which means that there was affirmative consent.

If you want the kind of consent law you seem to believe you want, then you'll have to advocate for specific and explicit consent requirements, or you're going to be complaining about why consent law didn't change anything but the margin between 'going along with' and 'not actively resisting'.

Comment Re:Waaaahhhhh!! (Score 2) 688

Considering Garrett's SJW credentials, it's more likely about working on his own, with his own mailing list where he can block anyone not adhering to his particular set of prejudices. I doubt it will be particularly productive. Or inclusive.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When people are least sure, they are often most dogmatic." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

Working...