Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Human beings are not born with smartphone attac (Score 2) 181

by dgatwood (#46743873) Attached to: The Case For a Safer Smartphone

Google's self-driving cars have gone 300,000 miles without an accident. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of 30–42 average-teen-driver-years worth of driving. Statistically, about 1 in five teenagers reports having an accident in any given year. So we would expect that the same number of miles driven by teenagers would have resulted in, on average, 6–8 accidents—more if we're talking about teenagers in their first year of driving.

In other words, Google's self-driving cars are already at least an order of magnitude safer than teen drivers. That's probably a statistically significant difference.

Comment: Re:Old news (Score 2) 144

You missed one major technical rule: all browsers on iOS that support local rendering are required to use the system rendering engine.

Actually, no, I'm pretty sure they're just not allowed to use any JavaScript engine other than the built-in JavaScriptCore. And as of iOS 7, it's theoretically possible to actually do so without using WebKit.

Comment: Re:Good! (Score 1) 328

by dgatwood (#46666907) Attached to: Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

It's not willful ignorance. It's actually a legitimate question. From everything I've read, there are roughly two types of revenge porn:

  • Fake revenge porn, in which someone pretends that he or she is getting revenge on a former significant other so that people will be more turned on, but in reality, it's just commercial porn, and legal.
  • Fake revenge porn, in which someone surreptitiously cracks into the victim's computer and records that person in his or her own home, which is already illegal. And this is what the lawsuits have mainly been about.

I suspect that the real revenge porn, if it even exists, is just about lost in the noise caused by the two forms listed above.

Comment: Re:Freedom of Participants trumps Picture Owner (Score 1) 328

by dgatwood (#46666813) Attached to: Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

... the homeowner does NOT automatically gain the right to record the guest WITHOUT permission.

If that were true, then "NannyCam" footage would be inadmissable. Different states have different laws that carve out specific places where recording is not allowed—most forbid recording in bathrooms, for example—but as a rule, if you're in someone else's home, you should generally assume that you have little or no right to privacy.

Comment: Uuuuuuh.... what? (Score -1) 112

by Simon Brooke (#46658573) Attached to: Cheaper Fuel From Self-Destructing Trees

Cut tree down, cut tree up, stack it in a shed for two years to dry, burn it, spread the resultant ash on the garden. That's processing, I suppose, And there's labour involved, which you might consider costly. But you don't need caustic chemicals, and the only high temperatures involved go to heating your house, which is what fuel is all about.

Why not go out and invent something actually useful?

Comment: Re:Its called paying attention (Score 1) 364

by dgatwood (#46658417) Attached to: Your Car Will Tell You How To Hit the Next Green Light

I was referring to normal traffic lights that lack any indication of when the light is about to change, not the rare lights with countdown timers or the hypothetical lights with a dashboard assist. The split-second decision to floor it or slam on the brakes is a bigger problem when you're accelerating from a stop as the light changes to yellow, not when you're going way over the speed limit, for two reasons: A. there may not be any choice that doesn't result in either getting rear-ended or being in the middle of the light when it turns green in the other direction, and B. your foot is on the wrong pedal to stop, adding critical latency to that decision, should you choose to stop.

Comment: Re:Its called paying attention (Score 1) 364

by dgatwood (#46641269) Attached to: Your Car Will Tell You How To Hit the Next Green Light

Actually, it's the opposite. The worst speed to be entering a traffic light is near zero. You've slowed down to a low speed because of someone slowing to turn right ahead of you. The traffic behind you collapses to be nearly bumper to bumper at 15 MPH in a 40 zone. The light is timed for 40 MPH. You don't realize that the light is about to turn yellow, so rather than just coming to a stop, you decide to enter the intersection. Then the light turns yellow and you're moving at a speed that will put you and the two cars behind you in the middle of the intersection when it turns green in the other direction. Whether you floor it to get through the light legally or slam on the brakes and get rear-ended, the car behind you is screwed.

Comment: Re:Stop using JavaScript! (Score 1) 1482

by dgatwood (#46632579) Attached to: OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights

There's nothing wrong with JavaScript, language-wise. I mean, sure, I'd prefer for closures to be explicit rather than implicit, in part because it tends to confuse the newbies a bit, but otherwise, it's a reasonable language. The problems mostly stem from:

  • All the built-in functions—the JavaScript DOM, XHR, etc.—which are designed in strange ways that assume everyone understands closures
  • The single-threaded design (not inherent in the language, but mandated by the DOM spec, IIRC)
  • Overuse of completion handlers even for things that really don't need them, mainly to workaround the lack of threading

None of those things would improve with a different language except possibly the first one.

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Working...