Forgot your password?

Comment: No. left hand doesn't know what right hand does (Score 1) 97

by bussdriver (#47731627) Attached to: NSA Agents Leak Tor Bugs To Developers

NSA doesn't give a rip. Their job is to get into Tor. If they find out military or CIA secrets it is not a problem because they are on the same side. Ideally, they'd find exploits or put them in and patch it for the military's client only... but their primary goal is to get themselves in, secondary goal is to help the other agencies (so they are not going to publicly give Tor patches... or if they do decide that is more important, do you think they would be public about it? I would think they would purposely leak patches.)

Comment: Fanatics in the religion of capitalism (Score 2) 321

by bussdriver (#47726421) Attached to: FCC Warned Not To Take Actions a Republican-Led FCC Would Dislike

These fanatics would make the same arguments for public roads, public right of way, water, power, sewer, heating gas and highway system. They do in fact and have made great headway into those areas, it is to the point where serious discussions happen on the privatization of the air happen without laughter at how ridiculous it is.

It's like pyromaniacs have been given influence over fire safety... not all fire is good, they don't realize it because they are mentally ill. One has to wonder about these fanatic capitalists...

Comment: Permissions. It's a kind of privalage escalation. (Score 1) 96

by bussdriver (#47713559) Attached to: Your Phone Can Be Snooped On Using Its Gyroscope

The app doesn't use your microphone; or you deny it, or whatever. So the app uses the gyro to figure out what you are saying anyway - you have no idea it can even do this because it doesn't use the microphone. 3rd parties could AUDIT and secure the software for government or corporate use--- and it would still record gyro information.

A background app could listen constantly even while other apps have the mic if it can background and use the gyro.

A hacked app with only gyro access...

Think about the story weeks ago about using video cameras detecting vibrations to hear things and what next gen phones could do with that-- similar situation (but crazy battery usage even on futuristic more powerful phones.)

Future work:
ID which person in the family is carrying the phone using the gyros?

Comment: If not Netflix, torrents. be happy. (Score 1) 181

by bussdriver (#47708927) Attached to: Netflix CEO On Net Neutrality: Large ISPs Are the Problem

If not for Netflix taking on the fight, the ISPs would be attacking torrents as a huge problem along with propaganda ("OMG, think of the children!" or "OMG, terrorists use torrents!")

Torrents do not have protection like Netflix does. YouTube might also be a target, again be happy that torrents are not the #1 threat to ISP screwing their customers. When they were the #1 user, data caps, QoS games, tampering with packets and other schemes were developing. Thank you Netflix and YouTube for slowing the assault; ISPs had to give in a little due to customer demand for Netflix.

Comment: Geodesic (Score 1) 61

by bussdriver (#47708789) Attached to: Modular Hive Homes Win Mars Base Design Competition

Geodesic domes. Most area covered with the least material and most strength. You would need something to keep in an atmosphere and geodesic domes are the clear solution.

But seriously, it has to be underground-- Mars is way too cold and has little atmosphere. How can people forget how crazy cold it gets on Mars? Do people not know that our air freezes in their winter? You'd have to insulate that water in the roof and heat it. We have troubles in Antarctica we should work out 1st.

You are better off waiting until we can figure out how to jump start it's core or devise a sun shield. Robots can do everything better and cheaper-- there is no good reason to go. People just need to admit they want it because it's cool; it has little practical benefit. NASA used to do a lot of planetary science; why not work on that and try to make that cool instead?

Comment: CONSIDER THE ETHICS (Score 1) 133

by bussdriver (#47708611) Attached to: FarmBot: an Open Source Automated Farming Machine

I started on a project with a physicist (who was a farmer) to do automated farming robots which were unlike all the previous projects (affordable and open, no need for GPS either... plus we'd pick the ideal kind of plants initially. We had green houses figured out too.) Those other projects are usually jokes, just dressing for a fairly typical student project. We began the initial designing work preparing for grant writing and that whole process. Then after some thought we decided it was not a good idea to replace the already poor farmers of the world with automation. Perhaps this is why previous projects ended up as silly exercises?

We decided to not be part of the problem; plus there was likely going to be politics involved. Keep in mind, a cheap solution would be a threat for most the worlds farmers, who are not high tech like the ones in the 1st world nations. The 1st world nations are likely dependent on their huge subsidizes even with their technological labor savings; for those nations, keeping industrial agriculture is about national security and politics.

Comment: Re:Video Games ARE different! (Score 1) 417

by bussdriver (#47687581) Attached to: Swedish Dad Takes Gamer Kids To Warzone

Not relevant. Doesn't matter if psychology is a science or not.

It's partially "science". Of course you can play with the definition for a long time but the general definition is that it is a systematic study of a topic. The "scientific method" is not required in many definitions of science. Psychology is a study of the human mind (which one could argue is beyond logical understanding by beings with such limited minds in the first place.) If you only allow science to apply to those who use "the method" all the time you have a problem.

Actually, they have courses on the philosophy of science which greatly undermines the hard sciences when you get into the details of it. It is not easy to define a science. Things become tricky as one wants to keep sciences they like... Inductive reasoning for example (not math induction) is a cornerstone in all the sciences and that is anecdotal and therefore illogical. As such a course will point out at some point before they make many arguments justifying and defining when one should accept inductive non-logical reasoning. (deductive being logical, inductive only being logical when you accept some base premises on the definition of logical... which is required to get anywhere. pure logic is not that useful.) It's been over a decade since I dwelt with the topic and I don't like to give useful fuel to the anti-science people.

Psychology is a formal systematic study of the human mind; it is therefore a science and since it's goal is to find the true nature of the mind it would be the best profession to go to on such matters. They don't study it simply to pass the time... it is applied to control your behavior already whether you are aware of it or not. Deny physics all you want, you still will go splat... deny psychology all you want, you can still be driven insane or buy shit you don't want.

Comment: Re:Same old tired BS (Score 1) 304

by bussdriver (#47687529) Attached to: Humans Need Not Apply: a Video About the Robot Revolution and Jobs

Evidence? This is not like any other technology advancement; if you can't see that you are daft.

That point is enough to undermine the analogy that it is like all previous technology advances and therefore won't eliminate jobs.

YOU are the one claiming that this is just an analogy with the past; you people have to back up your claims since you are the ones making them; the skeptics on my side do not have to prove jack. Without your analogy, you can't claim there is nothing to worry about because it's a real possibility. That said, I could make predictions and claims along those lines but as speculation, it is not something I can prove - but merely show current trends and make reasonable projections based upon those. Confidence levels then become the point of contention.

I would suggest you look into the history of planned obsolescence. There is so much data backing the ARTIFICIAL JOBS that planned obsolescence creates that it's just an unquestioned accepted practice; viewed as the natural behavior of businesses. Sure it creates more profits and that may be the sole motives, but for now those profits can't be had without jobs.
Today we have an ever increasing need for MORE advanced marketing because we never have enough demand in the market (except for fads.) The system is being propped up heavily TODAY, not to mention that it requires exploitation on many levels...

Even if you believe what you do; belief being the proper term >:-) there is going to be a huge upset as large job markets are eliminated and people try to migrate into new areas. Then you have to consider the size of those markets compared with past job collapse to job shift situations and the parallel timing as the tech spreads.

Comment: 125,000 miles a lemon? (Score 1) 174

by bussdriver (#47687143) Attached to: Tesla Removes Mileage Limits On Drive Unit Warranty Program

How many Ford or GM cars back them up after 100,000? All parts or just certain parts? This doesn't seem to be that unusual and I've not heard any claims about 30% failure rates-- given how anything bad with Tesla gets some news coverage and provokes online defenders I would think we'd be hearing about major problems.

None of my past cars were able to get anything out of the maker after 100,000 miles.

Comment: Same old tired BS (Score 1) 304

by bussdriver (#47682017) Attached to: Humans Need Not Apply: a Video About the Robot Revolution and Jobs

I've heard this argument in a million ways for many years. It is an appeal to history and while the points are usually true (because it's easier than making stuff up) it alone is not the full argument. The fallacy being made each time is one of false analogy; or over simplification. A classic debate between judgement calls on the validity of analogies. Often a slippery slope fallacy gets used (by either side!)

As TFA...TFV points out that this is fundamentally different than all the other technology changes so it is illogical to make the traditional analogy. The outcome is not certain; however, one can't simply appeal to past arguments because the similarity. As far as future technology prediction being along the lines of flying cars, a lot of that stuff is not unrealistic but the problem is the outlandish stuff is more entertaining to "report." He addresses this as well by pointing out CURRENT technology. Like Windows upgrades, it takes years before adoption is widespread... meanwhile newer iterations are under development.

Comment: Video Games ARE different! (Score 1) 417

by bussdriver (#47681833) Attached to: Swedish Dad Takes Gamer Kids To Warzone

When you learn some psychology, you quickly realize a game is more than TV. Especially if the game is 1st person and made to immerse the player as possible. It can be done in ways to NOT key into that but since a large demo plays them as a form of imaginary fantasy dreamworld... the same people who'd kill to get a real world holodeck.

Basic therapy techniques:
Analyzing hypothetical situations
Role Playing.
Hypnosis Role Playing; like dreaming - not stage show hypnosis.
Conditioning thru repetitive behaviors; ideally tied to specific situational triggers.

The techniques used to help people with minor to severe mental problems can end up unintentionally mirrored in a video game but it's not an expert controlled situation-- they are not going to push all the wrong emotional buttons of a mental case but a game can do it, or a movie. It's not like TV/movie watchers are not in a semi-hypnotic state of mind that is lower than consciousness... game players are probably more mentally active; however that doesn't make it less of a problem. Therapy not using hypnosis is often more effective; for example.

Comment: Re:PoliSci (Score 1) 74

by bussdriver (#47665017) Attached to: Clever Workaround: Visual Cryptography On Austrian Postage Stamps

Plus senators are elected by the state and not the voters. I'm not sure that it was such a good idea to let the voters decide. Doesn't seem like much changed other than it became more typically political; with a state appointee the political game is significantly different because it's all internal. A divided state gov would elect interesting senators-- while a 1 part state gov would elect insiders who are likely corrupt... which is why it was switched to a public vote. But arguably a proper selection system would have the state do a better job than the ignorant voters... and perhaps get people to pay more attention to their local reps?

Comment: Re:The elephant in the room. (Score 1) 227

by bussdriver (#47650423) Attached to: About Half of Kids' Learning Ability Is In Their DNA

Neanderthals had slightly larger brains... but then if you look at dolphins you'll see that part of their large brain size is due to FAT to keep their brain temperature up-- because temp is a really HUGE factor on brain function. I enjoyed the Neanderthal connection and how it upset so many white people... (I'm white) and I will enjoy the discovery that Neanderthals were fat headed too.

Not long ago there was some scientists claiming high testosterone levels were damaging to evolution so it lowered and probably allowed more brain development. Neanderthals could have had high testosterone levels... Neanderthals are known to be anti-social with small groups while the humans had tribes and could work as a group (or some tradition kept their bones together and Neanderthals bones apart) - and before people were forced to accept the interbreeding science the thought was that Neanderthals didn't stand a chance.

Also large human brains require a lot of PROTEIN in the diet. So does muscle. It would seem to me as brains became more important the protein in the diet migrated. I remember reading something about our ape ancestors moving to more meat in the diet and how that was needed for brain size. It wasn't out of desperation.

Also when one reads the science it becomes rather clear (but not provable) that brains were tiny all the way to the top of the food chain and the only pressure would have been competition between packs of the plains apes (which date far before Neanderthals.) There wasn't a food shortage as much as too much demand. That would also encourage them to spread out over a wide range. Just think about the facts-- humans have little hair, sweat out their whole body's skin, run efficiently on two legs, and are the best distance runners in the whole animal kingdom. We didn't become best for nothing. We ran in packs after lions etc. until they over heated and then anything made easy kill. A Cheetah may be way faster but it can't go out of your sight and a pack of healthy humans can jog after it for 20 miles without rest... if the Cheetah can even make it that far in the heat (plus having thumbs, throwing sticks and rocks is likely. Chimps still throw things to deter/herd... they just can't chase and don't need to compete.) Humans use less energy and muscle to propel themselves great distances than probably any other land animal; again the evolutionary pressure of jogging explains most everything.

The best way to avoid responsibility is to say, "I've got responsibilities."