Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:What is the point? (Score 1) 335

The fact is, phones should be able to be wiped before travel and having a quick restore option that brings everything back 100% once you're past customs.

Go ahead and do that. You physical phone may still be inspected at the border.

So why should it apply to the physical phone?/quote
I am repeating myself. It applies to the physical phone because physical inspection at the border applies to physical devices and not internet connections. Border Services do not deal with internet connection just physical border crossings.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 1) 335

Electronic bits aren't physical.

They are a physical state on a physical device.

But if you argue that they are, they are encrypted and that's the end of it.

Encrypted data and phone password are different things as well. The issue is the phone password and not a data encryption key.

Comment: Re:Given the depth of surveillance (Score 1) 54

Sure the could block all robo-calls but then the next meme would be "FCC blocks political free speech" or "FCC blocks charity campaigns". Blocking robo-calls is easy but robo-calls in themselves are not illegal. Even in do not call lists there are exemptions such as charity/political calls.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 1) 335

Why is it fine to send a private email to your drug dealer while you're standing in line at customs, but as soon as you reach the agent, you have to decrypt the storage you're holding in your hand?

Because it is not the Border Services job to police the internet but it is the Border Services job to inspect all physical object to ensure they comply with the law. Decrypting storage on a device is the same as opening a lock on a case. The fact that the documents are electronic bits as opposed to paper is irrelevant. There is a huge difference between data sent over the internet and data physically stored on a device.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 1) 335

That type of logic is flawed. It basically comes down to "this is worse than that so why bother with that?". It is used in many instances such as comparing murders with traffic violations; Why is that cop pulling me over when he should be out catching murderers? Different departments have different priorities. In this case Border Services has nothing to do with internet traffic but they do have responsibility for who and what come physically across the border. The fact that everything on the internet is not searched has nothing to do with the investigation techniques at the border.

Comment: Re:Do pilots still need licenses? (Score 1) 350

by jklovanc (#49190077) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

For a computer chess is a matter of tree building and branch trimming. Both are simple well known concepts. Interpreting what is happening in the world is a much more complex process.

That person at the curb doesn't wait for an opportunity to throw himself in front of your car and get killed.

They just accidentally throw himself in front of your car. With cell phones today people are very distracted and do very stupid things. Then there are children and animals who just do stupid things. Then there are other vehicles who might not follow the rules, emergency vehicles, traffic lights, flagmen, road issues, etc. Roads are much more complex by at least a few orders of magnitude than a chess board.

For example, there is a person on the side of the road with his hand up. It could be a friend waving hello or a police officer waving you over. At this point in the Google vehicle all it sees is a mass of moving blocks and can interpret no further.

We are not even sure how the brain interprets the world. So far we know it deals with neural nets but we have yet to get to the fine detail. It is very difficult to emulate something poorly known.

Comment: Re:Do pilots still need licenses? (Score 2) 350

by jklovanc (#49186779) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

Every time a computer gets good at a task once thought to be outside of the realm of AI

Who ever said that?

Chess computers win by computing all the possible outcomes for a large number of moves ahead. The only limiting factor is computer speed. As computers get faster they can follow very similar algorithms aned get much better. At the base chess is not hard if you can calculate far enough in the future. People can not calculate far enough and therefore use other methods to win. By the way, we have had chess computers for 50 years.

The problem with real life is that it is not constrained by simple rules like chess. There are two many variables and too many situations that are non deterministic. For example, if you see a person standing near the curb. What do you think they might do. The prediction is based on many things; age, gender, which way they are facing, what they are doing, etc. They might just stand there or they might dart out into traffic. It is very hard for a computer to make predictions. The same goes for other vehicles.

Then something else will be "impossible" for a computer to do.

I never said impossible; just that driving a vehicle in the real world is very different than winning at chess. Compared to the real world chess is child's play. I don't think it will happen until our computing power increases by a few orders of magnitude. Never is a long time.

By the way, there is a big difference between a computer playing chess and a computer driving a vehicle. When a computer playing chess fails it loses a game. When a computer driving a vehicle fails people can die.

Comment: Re:silly reasons not to (Score 2, Insightful) 221

by jklovanc (#49184211) Attached to: <em>Star Trek</em> Fans Told To Stop "Spocking" Canadian $5 Bill

- Reduced lifespan, so what? It is being replaced anyway.

Do you replace your car every time you use it? It is going to be replaced anyway, eventually. By reducing lifespan one is increasing the costs of to the government and wasting my taxes.

It might be rejected in a transaction. Lame, someone else will take it. Its only $5

If it is my last cash and the machine will not accept it that I would quite perturbed.

Source of national pride.

Canadian money has national leaders on it not actors.

Comment: Re:Storage (Score 1) 189

by jklovanc (#49177565) Attached to: World's First Lagoon Power Plants Unveiled In UK

Most power sold on the grid is consumed close to where it is produced. You are proposing something completely different. The grid does not carry electricity long distances well.

You are under the impression that, because the grid is connected, no matter where in the grid the electricity is injected it can be consumed somewhere else on the grid. That is patently not true.

He's like a function -- he returns a value, in the form of his opinion. It's up to you to cast it into a void or not. -- Phil Lapsley

Working...