Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 271

Well, either the urban crowd *does* have a majority, regardless of the numbers GP pulled out of his ass, or the rural crowd is not as unified as GP thinks. Either way GP's an idiot for conflating land holding with voting rights, and I don't care enough to be precise.

Baby Jesus can go fsck himself, my math skills are fine.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 271

Using 2012 as an example, Cook County contributed 1.94 million votes to a 5.1 million total. So 2.8% of the land area represented 40% of the results that decided 100% of the electoral votes of the state. I'm pretty sure the 97.2% of Illinois that works that land to feed the remaining 2.8% feels pretty crappy about that imbalance.

Yes, I'm sure those 97.2% of Illinois's acres of land feels really bad about supporting the other 2.8% of acres of land. On the other hand, the *minority* of rural voting humans don't have a leg to stand on when the *majority* of urban humans overrules them.

Do you want a state electoral college that choses the governor and legislators, with the electors chosen by each district, as they do at the federal level? Or maybe, say, one vote per person per acre owned?

Comment Re:A compromise (Score 1) 235

Fair arguments, but those are arguments against self-driving cars in general as well. What do we do in general when the AI encounters a situation it can't handle? Although self-driving cars are apparently better than normal drivers in most conditions, it would surprise me if humans are not still much better at the edge cases. And edge cases that the car can't handle will always exist - what's the AI supposed to do when it faces a tornado, an earthquake, or a crazed gunman for instance?

Of course, there are also edge cases that a human driver can't handle, which is one of the reasons even good drivers still have accidents. It's impossible to train someone, be it a human or an AI, for all possible cases, so we just have to accept that limitation and train them for the cases they can reasonably be expected to encounter. With a self-driving car that would hopefully be a far smaller list, and would therefore require less certification.

Hopefully the off-switch approach would only be a stopgap measure until the AI is good enough to handle traffic cops and other edge cases, at which point anyone, capable or not, could hop in for a ride.

Comment Re:A compromise (Score 1) 235

I'm not sure what you're getting at... Are you saying you're worried that car companies will say they're merely giving the cops the right to disable the self-driving mode of our car while *actually* giving them the power to transfer control of the self-driving AI to the cop?

Just in case my idea wasn't clear, I'm saying that the self-driving AI should *always* be under control of the person in the car, and that it should have nothing more for the cop than an off switch. In that scenario and assuming the car company doesn't screw it up, worst case is you have to drive manually, and your car can never be taken over by an external "driver".

Comment A compromise (Score 1) 235

Ok, so none of us likes the idea of the cops being able to take full control of the car. It leaves a security hole ripe for abuse and mischief, and the cop is not necessarily in the position to determine how best the car should move.

However, under the assumption that a self-driving car will have a manual mode, what if the cop could emit a signal that disabled the autopilot? That would put the driver in control again, who could then decide whether or not to follow the cop's instructions as well as determine how to do so in the safest manner. Make it a broadcast signal that blankets a certain area, so that the driver gets plenty of warning that they'll have to take over before arriving at the controlled intersection.

That should work long enough for us to figure out how to have an AI recognize a traffic cop's instructions.

Comment Re:Amazing (Score 1) 492

This "businessman" has driven his various companies bankrupt on at least 3 occasions

Nothing wrong with declaring bankruptcy. If someone lends you money, that's done with the understanding that there's a chance you may not pay them back. That's one of the reasons you pay interest on lending, as otherwise there'd effectively be no cost (barring administrative) associated with lending and competitive pressure would then quickly push rates down to near zero.

No one succeeds all the time. This concept that you always have to pay back your debts no matter what is silly and counterproductive. One of the reasons the US is more successful in business than the EU is because the US is less harsh with debtors.

Comment Re:Proposed solution is more sexist (Score 1) 388

Multiple responses to the issue, but none of which, apart from a wasteful personal heater, are conducive to work. Tried mittens, also makes it slightly harder to type, which is an issue since that's what I do all day. I could "just" wear mittens about as easily as you could "just" wear more antiperspirant.

And why can't you have a personal AC? Unless you work in a closet with a 5 ft ceiling, the waste heat's just going to go up and away into the AC system. Or you could get a fan or dehumidifier, wear lighter fabrics, drink cold water...

As for 70-72, dunno, probably, possibly. my point is more that both sides have options (despite how GP and you portray things), and neither side likes them so tries to shift the responsibility onto the other. What we need is a new series of studies *and* more zonal control.

Comment Re:Hopefully, they'll be able to bypass the carrie (Score 1) 126

According to the carrier, if you want a secure phone, you'll just have to buy a new one from them.

Hang on a second... I understand what you're saying, and I'll definitely believe it applies to phones originally bought from a carrier. However, if I were to buy a Samsung directly from the manufacturer and then use it with a carrier, I'm not beholden to the carrier for updates, right? Since it's not a carrier-branded phone, I can just get updates over any valid internet connection, right?

Or does what you're saying even apply to non-branded unlocked phones? If it does, wow... I didn't realize the update regime was *that* screwed up.

Comment Re:quad-bike designed a few years ago (Score 1) 80

The article title is somewhat misleading. If you watch the video on the Swincar, you'll see it's doing a lot more than just tilting. The front and rear "axel" can independently pivot around the roll axis of the car, and looks like each wheel can independently extend its reach. There's a photo of it driving straight forward, aligned straight in a gulch, and still with only its rear left and front right wheel in the gulch while the rear right and front left are on opposing hillsides of the gulch.

Comment Re:Proposed solution is more sexist (Score 1) 388

Finally, who actually thinks that people set temperature controls based on studies done in the 1960s?

Our building is. It was built in the 70's, doesn't have zonal control, so the entire building is set to somewhere around 68 F and the offices are hot or cold depending on where they are in the ducting. I don't have great circulation, so some days it's so chilly my hands start to stiffen and I can't type properly any more, which a sweater has limited effect on.

Yes, you may not be able to work when it's too hot, but I can't work when it's too cold, and it's not always as simple as just wearing more clothes. No one in my building wears a suit, and considering the weather's 90 F outside it would save them energy to turn the airco down, say to 75 F.

Comment Re:Is that even worthwhile? (Score 1) 113

Depends on in which part of the country you are. I see a ~ $0.50/gal price difference in stations within 3 miles of home (Southern CA), and there's rarely a line at the cheaper places. It may only save me ~ $6 a tank, but that adds up over time, and the cheaper places are close enough that it's not really out of my way.

Comment Re:May you (Score 1) 330

So explain how this corner case you are worried about trumps the far more common case of people who commit fraud asking for their records to be "forgotten" so they can continue to defraud people?

Because people who actually commit a crime have no right to be forgotten under this law. Your argument is not applicable.

Comment Re:Worst? Heh (Score 1) 574

...but you also get noise/junk audio when you layer multiple audio streams (drums, guitar, vocals, etc) and try to combine them into one waveform.

Can you please go into a bit more detail about this? Assuming you have enough headroom that you don't clip, and if you have a filter to remove any components above your final sample rate so they don't alias down, I'm not sure I understand where the junk would be coming from. Are you talking about applying non-linear effects to the sound?

I know that higher sampling rates improve things, in that it's at the very least easier to create good filters to crop audio to your final rate. This is important because any frequency components above 22 kHz are aliased down to audible frequencies when you downsample to 44 kHz, and it is far easier to build a 20 kHz digital low-pass filter running at a sample rate of 192 kHz than at, say, 48 kHz. Your quantization noise is also moved up to half the sample rate and can likewise be better filtered out than if it was at 22 kHz, which is what I meant by moving it around.

The noise floor drops directly from the higher bit depth

You mean distortion, right, and I suppose jitter as well? Thermal noise, which is always present, will go up.

Comment Re:Worst? Heh (Score 1) 574

Digital studio equipment records in and keeps audio in a format at a higher bit-depth AND sample rate. Every edit and every layer of multiple tracks is like resaving a lossy jpeg. Your final result may contain all those extra bits, but they need to be averaged out and resampled away because the detail is already lost by that point. That's why you record in 192KHz / 24-bit and then master to 44.1KHz / 16-bit. GP post is 100% correct.

No, it's in fact exactly the same as saving a lossless bitmap. You can introduce additional quantization noise if you amplify and then truncate to integer samples, and other types of distortion if you apply nonlinear transformations (say, clipping), but it is *absolutely* not the same as a jpeg. Saving a jpeg literally discards information as part of the saving process - this does not happen when saving a bitmap nor when saving a wave. Previous poster is correct that it's bit depth and not sampling rate that changes the noise floor, as given an infinite bit depth PCM allows for perfect reconstruction up to half the sampling frequency according to Nyquist's sampling theorem.

Changing the sampling rate makes it easier to build good filters and puts the quantization noise at a higher frequency, nothing more.

The noise floor they are talking about is introduced by the editing - not inherent to the recording.

Well, then he should have stated he was talking only about quantization noise or distortion. Even then, changing the sampling rate only moves this noise, it doesn't reduce it.

God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein