Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Gift Horse (Score 1) 312

Oh wait! A Congressman can make all of the speeches he wants, even on the floor of Congress, and it doesn't constitute government policy. You might notice that Congressmen are not policy makers in the Executive branch. POLICY MAKER. Like President, Secretary of State, Attorney General, etc. Policy makers decide, they order. Members of the Legislature make speeches, occasionally vote, and rarely get some meaningful law passed. Constitutionally they can't even target an individual by name in a law.

All that constitutes is hot air, nothing more. It isn't a threat to Assange. It is just opinions. That's it.

Trying to spin that into an actual something is rubbish.

Comment Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score 1) 273

Hillary's servers were not totally secure, but were they more or less secure than the State Dept's servers?

Not relevant.

Is there anyone who cares about this issue that didn't already hate Hillary for other reasons?

You mean like anyone interested in good government?

Boondoggles and misconduct are party agnostic and should be opposed regardless of source.

Comment Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score 1) 273

The key question that you are ignoring isn't the use of a non-government server by a government official, but rather, "What was it used for, and in what context?"

There are functions expected of members of an administration that aren't legal to perform on government servers, such as partisan political activity. That is a perfectly legitimate reason to use a non-government server.

Hillary co-mingled personal matters with political matters with official duties of a Ministerial nature, and had state secrets mixed in with her mail. That is wildly inappropriate. It is almost unbelievable that any person of Hillary's education and general exposure to government would do that. Almost.

Odd that you don't seem aware or interested in any of that.

I'm also pretty sure that most "fox fans" don't think Hillary is "literally" Hitler. Most of them probably have a very good idea who Hitler is, and aren't likely to toy with slinging that name around.

Submission + - DRM In JPGs? (

JustAnotherOldGuy writes: Adding DRM to JPG files is being considered by the Joint Photographic Expert Group (JPEG), which oversees the JPEG format. The JPEG met in Brussels today to discuss adding DRM to its format, so that there would be images that would be able to force your computer to stop you from uploading pictures to Pintrest or social media. The EFF attended the group's meeting in Brussels today to tell JPEG committee members why that would be a bad idea. Their presentation explains why cryptographers don't believe that DRM works, points out how DRM can infringe on the user's legal rights over a copyright work (such as fair use and quotation), and warns how it places security researchers at legal risk as well as making standardization more difficult. It doesn't even help to preserve the value of copyright works, since DRM-protected works and devices are less valued by users.

Comment Re:What if I don't want to own a car? (Score 1) 308

Oh, quit being so pedantic and literal. A box on wheels with no manual controls rolling down the road unoccupied is likely to never happen. That's the takeaway, that's been my opinion from the beginning, and I'm sticking to it. That being said, no one is saying we won't have a more advanced 'cruise control' or 'driver assist' system.

Comment Re:Big hypotheticals (Score 1) 308

The author doesn't caveat his opinion as "Autonomous cars aren't good enough *yet*." He simply states that history tells us that we will *never* have autonomous vehicles. He's apparently writing a book about Apollo Era rockets. I guess he's so far behind the times that he doesn't realize that computer science has advanced beyond what he clearly thinks is possible. His argument is essentially "Autonomous vehicles have always needed pilots, therefore autonomous vehicles will always need pilots."

Comment Re:Why should? (Score 1) 308

When in doubt. Slow as quickly as possible. If you have a safe following distance (which you always should have) then unless a problem emerges somehow out of thin air the worst that will happen is that you can't proceed. But you should always understand the condition of the road ahead of you or stop before you reach it. That's true of autonomy and true of real human drivers. You drive only as fast as you can see. If you can't see around a bend, drive slow enough that you can stop should something be stopped around the corner. If you can't see far enough to complete the pass, don't pass.

If a autonomous car encounters something it doesn't understand, it can simply come to a stop because it should have entered its FOV beyond its stopping distance. Then you can (wake up) and give it the go-ahead or not.

Comment Re:Why should? (Score 1) 308

Because reasons. Seriously this should be emberassing for MIT to come from one of their own.

"If robotics in extreme environments are any guide, Mindell says, self-driving cars should not be fully self-driving. That idea, he notes, is belied by decades of examples involving spacecraft, underwater exploration, air travel, and more. In each of those spheres, fully automated vehicles have frequently been promised, yet the most state-of-the-art products still have a driver or pilot somewhere in the network. "

Let's break down the reasons why this is an idiotic statement.

1) "If robotics in extreme environments are any guide." Why would extreme environments be a guide to how people commute. Previous Robotics were all about going to extremely hazardous environments where people couldn't live to learn things about places we know little to nothing about. Compare that to our transit system which by definition someone knows so well that they built a road there and the caveat makes no sense.

2) "That idea is belied by decades of examples" So because older inferior computers and analog systems were limiting we'll be limited for all time? Sorry but no. That's like saying "Because the horse and carriage have always traveled at 30mph or less, no good will come from traveling at speeds in excess of 100mph."

His entire argument comes down to fully autonomous cars (taxis) are bad because space exploration requires human direction and Apollo era hardware/software wasn't sufficiently capable of handling 100% of a mission.

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen