Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Who wants a watch that you have to recharge dai (Score 2) 189

by American AC in Paris (#48628851) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Can I Really Do With a Smart Watch?

The entire point of having a battery in a watch is so that you don't have to worry about winding it every day,,, it's good for 3 years and then you replace the battery when it goes.

If I'm going to replace my watch, something that I've been using for years, and have only had to replace the battery twice since I got it, with something newer, then that newer thing should not create additional inconveniences that far outweigh anything it can do that a watch might not, particularly when there is nothing that it will do which a smart phone does not already do anyways.

There are a fair number of people out there who happily traded the 2-week battery life of their perfectly functional cell phones for dead-in-a-day smartphones. As it turns out, the inconvenience of having to constantly recharge a smartphone was worth putting up with in exchange for being able to do all the things you can do with a smartphone. Clearly, not everyone shared this sentiment, as you can still see any number of people using non-smartphones today--but significant numbers of people chose functionality over battery life.

It's hardly a stretch of the imagination to see the same thing happening with smart watches.

Comment: Re:Home of the brave? (Score 4, Insightful) 563

by squiggleslash (#48622985) Attached to: Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

Yes, I'd go to the mall. And if I didn't, it'd solely be because I'd turn back if I saw over-zealous TSA-style "security" at all entrances. That's right, I'm more afraid of the TSA (guaranteed to cause misery) than a terrorist (can only cause misery if extremely lucky.)

I lived the first 25 years of my life in a county regularly attacked by real terrorists - not cartoonish villains wearing head dresses, but the sociopathic extreme of a (rightly, in my view, but that's another story) angry Irish Catholic community. I can honestly say I never changed anything I did based upon fear of being killed by terrorists. You don't live your life that way.

In this case, Sony and various theater chains are pissing their pants over a group that has no record of terrorism and which, having "warned" us, is highly unlikely to get away with an attack anyway. And whose justification for an attack anyway is absurd and highly improbable to drive anyone into a murderous rampage.

Wusses.

This is the logical continuation of the Bush response to terrorism: show the entire world we're terrified and lashing out at everyone, because somehow that's helpful, moral, and not going to encourage more terror.

It's time this nation stood up, and stopped pissing its pants every time someone phones in a bomb threat.

Comment: Re:seems a lot like human vision to me (Score 1) 125

by Kjella (#48621113) Attached to: Research Highlights How AI Sees and How It Knows What It's Looking At

I think it was fairly clear what was going on, the neural networks latch on to conditions that are necessary but not sufficient because they found common characteristics of real images but never got any negative feedback. Like in the peacock photo the colors and pattern are similar, but clearly not in the shape of a bird but if it's never seen any non-bird peacock colored items how's the algorithm supposed to know? At any rate, it seems like the neural network is excessively focusing on one thing, maybe it would perform better if you divided up the work so one factor didn't become dominant. For example you send outlines to one network, textures to a second network and colors to a third network then using a fourth network to try learning which of the other three to listen to. After all, the brain has very clear centers too, it's not just one big chunk of goo.

Comment: Re:Oblig ... (Score 2, Insightful) 210

by Kjella (#48620493) Attached to: What Will Microsoft's "Embrace" of Open Source Actually Achieve?

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you. Then you lose and kill yourself."
- Hitler (well, not really)

I never understood what that Gandhi quote is so popular, sure that's what a victory looks like out the rear view mirror but most defeats start just the same.

Comment: It's fairly simple (Score 4, Insightful) 210

by squiggleslash (#48620341) Attached to: What Will Microsoft's "Embrace" of Open Source Actually Achieve?

Open source is a success. It's taken over most of the server market. The fact it's open is why it's a success - do you think PHP would ever be popular if it were closed?

The question Microsoft is asking themselves is not "How do we kill this", but "How do we monetize this?" (followed by "How far should we jump right now, and to what extent should we hold back?")

    • Slow down cowboy
    • Slow down cowboy
    • Slow down cowboy
    • Slow down cowboy

Comment: Re:Patents (Score 4, Informative) 210

by squiggleslash (#48620289) Attached to: What Will Microsoft's "Embrace" of Open Source Actually Achieve?

I may be wrong but I thought the only major patent things they've been involved in lately they were pretty up front about - in fact, many Slashdotters complained at the time they were just engaging in FUD by announcing they had any patents.

The things I know of are:

- The FAT LFN patent. Not a great idea, but they never picked FAT to be a SD card file system in the first place. Can't blame them for cashing in beyond general opposition to patents.
- The package of patents covering technologies in Android - this is the one I think Slashdot's commentator consensus complained was FUD until Microsoft started approaching mobile device makers.
- VC-1, which they were upfront about during the standardization process, and coordinated with the group licensing the MPEG LA was organizing.

Where have they tried to push something as an open standard and then turned around and said "Ha ha! Gotcha! Here are these hidden patents we never told you about"?

Comment: Re:It's required (Score 1) 162

by Kjella (#48615171) Attached to: Verizon "End-to-End" Encrypted Calling Includes Law Enforcement Backdoor

It was the 1960s. You were lucky to have a 300 baud modem, they wanted to save two bits by chopping the "19" off 1960 and encryption was regulated as munitions. Heck, even in the 1990s they wanted to restrict my browser to 40 bits so I didn't have "export grade" cryptography. I still hear cost for servers and battery life on clients as an argument for why sites don't move to HTTPS, The very idea to build the Internet with strong encryption by default was ridiculous on technical merits and I don't recall anyone even suggesting it so feel free to quote some sources.

Yes, MITM attacks are possible. But unlike wiretapping they're also detectable and I don't just mean in the theoretical sense. You could still use CAs to "boost" the credibility of an IP encryption key fingerprint (The CA signs my cert, I sign a message saying my IP uses fingerprint aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff), you can verify by proxy (connect to your server from friends/family/open wifi/proxy or ask a third party to what certificate fingerprint they see) or you can use in-band ad hoc verification. For example you're in a chat and it says at the top "finger print for this session is aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff" you might say "reverse it and you get ff:ee:dd:cc:bb:aa" or "third pair is a double c" or "last two are 255 in hex" as part of the conversation. Even better if it's voice communication, think they can MITM a buddy saying the fingerprint?

MITM only works if there's a protocol you can use to automatically block/filter any information about the key. For example imagine you take a photo, overlay the fingerprint semi-transparently and display it on your website. Now they have to create a very custom solution for your site to create an identical photo to replace it with. Transparent MITM in an interactive process - not just your cell phone checking your mail - is going to be really tough to do on a mass scale. It won't have the perfect theoretical characteristics, but it sure will work for most people most of the time.

Comment: Re:A different kind of justice for multinationals (Score 1) 137

by Kjella (#48611663) Attached to: Microsoft Gets Industry Support Against US Search Of Data In Ireland

If so, this boils down to can a court compel a property owner to direct his property to do something (such as forward a document in that properties possession), even if the property happens to be in another country?

That depends. For example many countries have laws regarding historical artifacts, you can own them but you can't take them out of the country. Or you can legally buy cryptography chips in the US that needs an export license. Just because Microsoft Ireland can legally possess the customer data in Ireland, doesn't mean they're free to ship it around the world or provide access to it in violation of Irish law.

Comment: Re:Doesn't seem simple (Score 1) 137

by Kjella (#48611387) Attached to: Microsoft Gets Industry Support Against US Search Of Data In Ireland

The fact here is that the individual(s) are refusing to provide access to the data voluntarily which requires the authorities to obtain it by force. This tells me there's something incriminating in the data which is why they didn't just hand it over.

So either you comply "voluntarily" or your lack of compliance is used as a reason do to if forcefully, either way the cops get to do whatever they want. Maybe they should start at home and repeal the 4th amendment first?

Comment: Re:First amendment? (Score 1) 249

by squiggleslash (#48608007) Attached to: Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

Kinda, there's an area in between that it also protects against. The first amendment also protects you against private prosecutions and civil actions, as well as (again, for the most part) the government using its megaphone to promote one view and not another. Of course, everything's subject to tests on whether it's actual speech or not, and some categories, generally involving dishonesty or involvement in crime, have less protection.

On that latter note, not being a lawyer, I can't comment on whether quoting from Sony's documents is likely to result in successful court action or not, and would be interested to hear a real lawyer's take on it (a good one, I don't mean NYCL.)

Comment: Re:Interesting, but ... (Score 1) 142

by Kjella (#48607847) Attached to: Want To Influence the World? Map Reveals the Best Languages To Speak

Any concepts "lost in translation" could be easily appended as a new word to a common tounge, there's an absurd amount of redundancy in that there are hundreds (thousands?) of ways to express simple concepts like "yes". The English say yes, the French oui, the Germans ja, the Spanish si, the Russians da, the Japanese hai, the Portugese sim, the Polish tak... is there a value to this? Language barriers are sand in the machinery for any kind of human endeavour in science, technology, commerce, travel, communities and so on. The Internet has enabled me to reach billions of people but I don't know how to talk to most of them. What they have to contribute to the global village isn't easily available to the rest and they can't access the global resources we're building. I think I read once that more than half the world's science papers are now written in English.

Sure I'd probably keep my own language for all those other reasons but I'd welcome a world where everybody could talk to everybody. Sometimes a particular concept just takes a little longer in English, that's all. For example the word "dumsnill" in Norwegian, it means something like naive but that usually implies that you're simple or gullible while this word in particular means your generosity is being exploited to taken advantage of you. I might need half a sentence to explain it in English, I don't need a whole language for that. I think the idea that some concepts are only expressible in one language is rather silly, I speak three and there's always a way of getting what I want across. Even with a simple vocabulary you can usually explain more advanced concepts without looking it up in a thesaurus.

Sentient plasmoids are a gas.

Working...