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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:You have your wish I guess (Score 1) 62

by SuperKendall (#49566293) Attached to: New Privacy Threat: Automated Vehicle Occupancy Detection

The words I carefully selected are more interesting and thematically relevant than your "In future" alteration.

They are also no less clear, as much as you try to confuse the issue.

So going forward I will write as I chose, not by the dictates of someone who has not been writing as long as I have...

Comment: Re:1D compression, AKA "Serialization" (Score 1) 80

by Tablizer (#49566281) Attached to: Holographic Principle Could Apply To Our Universe

"Dimension" is a perspective, a human artifact. The universe doesn't classify itself. 3D space as we perceive it may just be a useful lie to ourselves--a handy model but only an approximate model. We can throw in time and think of our world as 4D, but that doesn't mean that time is or is not a "dimension". It's only a perspective or model we can choose to use or not.

For a simpler version of this, imagine a 2D world where each time "slice" is stacked onto each other kind of like really thin pancakes from OUR perspective; we are given a God view. The higher we go in the stack, the more recent the time of their world. It's kind of like a flip-book, except it may be continuous instead of discrete pages.

We could cut into and study the pancakes to observe any time of this 2D world we want. But to the inhabitants of the 2D world, only the currently active "slice" (the present) is all they are capable of influencing and directly observing, outside of memories. It's just like our limited relationship with time.

We don't know what the "right" perspective is of our universe or if there even is ONE "right" one. There are only relationships (such as relationships between particles). How one chooses to perceive or project or represent these relationships is ultimately arbitrary.

Comment: Re:Easy fix (Score 1) 141

by Tablizer (#49566203) Attached to: The Engineer's Lament -- Prioritizing Car Safety Issues

I find different answers as to whether they won the case or not. I'm not a lawyer, so it may be the judgement was nuanced such that interpretation by us mortals can be dicey.

By some accounts, documents of their internal tests showed that the extra plastic reduced the problem, yet they didn't act on it. It may turn out down the road in the course of history it didn't actually help in production, but their "sin" was ignoring their own best evidence of the time. They did a cost/benefit analysis internally on early test models.

Comment: You have your wish I guess (Score 1) 62

by SuperKendall (#49566117) Attached to: New Privacy Threat: Automated Vehicle Occupancy Detection

Although I doubt it was done to solve the problem you outline, many HOV lanes are going to 3+ instead of 2+. So the single guy with a driver is no longer clear to go free...

Not that they will care; if you can afford a driver you can afford the toll easily. But at least they will have to pay going forward.

On the other hand, I find going to 3+ to be a burden on families where a wife and husband work, who may well not be able to afford to pay the full HOV fee every day and will no longer be able to use it for free even though they are using one car instead of two.

Comment: Easy fix (Score 5, Informative) 141

by Tablizer (#49565369) Attached to: The Engineer's Lament -- Prioritizing Car Safety Issues

I believe Ford lost the Pinto case because internal tests discovered the problem and also found an inexpensive fix: a $5 plastic wall between the gas tank and the impact zone of the tank.

In other words, the jury decided the company consciously bypassed a cheap and easy fix to shave a few bucks from manufacturing cost. It was a pretty simple tradeoff. I have to agree with Jury in that case. The car's statistical risk compared to other brands is moot (unless the other brands also discovered and skipped the easy fix, in which case, they may also be liable).

Comment: 1D compression, AKA "Serialization" (Score 2) 80

by Tablizer (#49565257) Attached to: Holographic Principle Could Apply To Our Universe

Just about any dimensional space can be represented in fewer dimensions, or even 1 dimension, if you accept some lossy-ness or fuzziness. Imagine a string of digits and codes with the structure: x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type, etc... Where x, y, and z are coordinates in 3D space and "type" is the type of particle. Example single particle encoding: "3629342.3442, 4872042.3987, 193203.0482, Electron". There may need to be more "state" info about a given particle to make it workable, but you get the general idea.

Comment: Yes, formula difference? (Score 1) 536

by SuperKendall (#49564575) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

There has to be more differences in the formulas that just the sweetener me thinks.

I didn't phrase my post at all well, and ended off on a tangent... but this is exactly the question I meant to ask with my subject.

I'm really curious if there are other differences besides just the sweetener between diet and non-diet drinks.

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson

Working...