Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:"Cinema like" is the biggest joke. (Score 1) 261

by harvestsun (#47123945) Attached to: Curved TVs Nothing But a Gimmick
A road approaching the horizon is further away in the Z direction. A rectangular screen, seen from a direction perpendicular to its surface, is not. You may want to google "perspective projection". (Although of course our eyes are not a normal perspective projection, since our retinas are curved, and the image is flipped. Good thing we have that "visual cortex" thing I mentioned!)

Comment: Re:"Cinema like" is the biggest joke. (Score 1) 261

by harvestsun (#47123689) Attached to: Curved TVs Nothing But a Gimmick
And I have no idea where he gets "dual elongated trapezoids". I assume he's TRYING to describe what a rectangle would look like in a fisheye lens (which, again, is not how humans see things), but that shape would have curved edges. "dual trapezoids" is a very poor (and irrelevant) approximation.

Comment: "Cinema like" is the biggest joke. (Score 5, Informative) 261

by harvestsun (#47123667) Attached to: Curved TVs Nothing But a Gimmick
Cinema screens are curved because cinema projectors use an anamorphic lens, and the curved screen is necessary to cancel that distortion out.

TV screens are not being projected on with an anamorphic lens. There is equal spacing between each pixel on a TV. So making a TV screen curved simply ADDS the distortion that curved cinema screens are designed to prevent.

This is the worst part though:

The slight curvature also reduces visual geometric distortion. When you watch a perfectly flat TV screen, Soneira explained, the corners of the screen are farther away than the center so they appear smaller. "As a result, the eye doesn't see the screen as a perfect rectangle - it actually sees dual elongated trapezoids, which is keystone geometric distortion," Soneira wrote.

WHAT? The screen is a rectangle, so our eye sees it as a rectangle, just as it would any other rectangular object! The visual cortex of our brain makes sure of that. How can someone who works with TVs not understand basic concepts of human vision?

Comment: Re:A "right"? (Score 1) 221

Do you really need evidence for the fact that terms of service, in most cases, are legally binding? I think that much should be obvious.

The question, if anything, is not "can they brick services if you don't agree to the terms?" It's "can you sell a TV advertising certain features, then change your terms in the future making those features unavailable to certain people?"

I am no lawyer but I am inclined to say "yes". The legal precedent seems to be "you can change your terms of service AS LONG AS you notify your users". Which LG is doing.

Though one could argue that it was not clear from the marketing that any agreement was required in order to use the advertised services. If there is any case against LG, I would guess that would be it.

Comment: Re:A "right"? (Score 1) 221

Exactly. The only question is whether or not they used misleading marketing. I imagine they need some fine print on the box, saying "you must agree to these terms to use these services". And given that they have an army of lawyers, I would be surprised if they neglected to do that.

Comment: Re:how can software decide (Score 1) 255

by harvestsun (#47050745) Attached to: The Sci-Fi Myth of Robotic Competence
50 years with no success? Really? Anyone with a functional brain can "solve" it quite easily. For example. I don't have a moral system. So I'll choose the action that benefits me most. Since I'm more likely to be imprisoned for manslaughter rather than criminal negligence, I'll choose to do nothing. Simple.

"Well I DO have a moral system!" you say. Well then do what that moral system tells you to do. If the answer is indeterminate, then your moral system is logically inconsistent. Simple.

Also, I can't imagine this "random" system having much success. The legal implications alone would be tremendous. Not to mention the fact that there's no way I would buy such a vehicle.

Comment: Terrible, terrible article (Score 1) 255

by harvestsun (#47049873) Attached to: The Sci-Fi Myth of Robotic Competence

should a robotic car sacrifice its owner’s life, in order to spare two strangers?

If such a car exists, I won't buy it, that's for sure! I'll buy from another car manufacturer. I imagine most people would feel similarly. Are you suggesting that there should be a law that all automated vehicles have this behavior? Ha! Good luck finding a politician who's willing to take that up.

all other options point to a chaos of litigation, or a monstrous, machine-assisted Battle Royale, as everyone’s robots—automotive or otherwise—prioritize their owners’ safety above all else, and take natural selection to the open road

We already have human drivers that prioritize their own safety above all else (I know I do!). Replacing these with superior robot drivers could only make things better, no?

the leap from a crash-reduced world to a completely crash-free one is an assumption

Only an idiot would make that assumption. Stop treating your readers like idiots. Oh wait, it's Popular Science. Never mind.

Even if it were possible to simply order all robots to never hurt a person, unless they suddenly able to conquer the laws of physics, or banish the Blue Screen of Death in all its vicissitudes, large automated machines are going to roll or stumble or topple into people.

More often than human drivers already do?

Comment: A driver's license of course (Score 1) 301

Autonomous driving should be thought of as a tool to make operating your vehicle safer. Not a luxury that allows you to sit back and take a nap. Flying a plane is mostly autopilot (except for takeoff). But pilots are required to have rigorous training. Why would car autopilot be any different? You need to be prepared for the worst. And no matter how good the technology gets, there will ALWAYS be situations that require manual override.

And this is where the slashdot idealists come in and say "well if that's the case, we just shouldn't have automated cars. We should only have them if they're completely safe." But be real. What would you rather have: an automated vehicle that works 99.9% of the time, or no automated vehicle at all? I know what I'd choose. Besides, it would be easier to focus on potential hazards if you were able to devote your full mental capacity to it.

"Be *excellent* to each other." -- Bill, or Ted, in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure