Forgot your password?

Comment: nobody interested? no wonder, really (Score 1) 324

by l3v1 (#47902285) Attached to: Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction
"Both sets of information â" from the car and phone â" are sent to Katasi's servers. Then, an algorithm weighs the incoming data with other information, like the location of the phones belonging to all the people who drive the car and the starting point of the trip; if the trip starts at Junior's high school, and mom and dad's phones are at work, the driver has been identified â" Junior is driving."

I mean come on. In order for you cell phone to not allow you texting while you drive, you and everyone in your family would need to share their location with some crap company with no data privacy regulation at all (we are talking about a U.S. company after all). I wouldn't be interested in such a product even if it was free. Its stupid and idiotic and ridiculous.

The only, I repeat ONLY situation when access to the phone or the navigation should be restcieted while the car is moving is when there is a single person in the vehicle, and that could be checked with seat sensors and cameras, no external company would need to collect you and your family's locations just to decide whether it's you who's driving the damn car.

+ - When Scientists Give Up->

Submitted by ferespo
ferespo (899921) writes "Ian Glomski thought he was going to make a difference in the fight to protect people from deadly anthrax germs. He had done everything right — attended one top university, landed an assistant professorship at another.
But Glomski ran head-on into an unpleasant reality: These days, the scramble for money to conduct research has become stultifying.

So, he's giving up on science."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Humans have too much (Score 3, Interesting) 206

by PlusFiveTroll (#47838559) Attached to: Should Cyborgs Have the Same Privacy Rights As Humans?

Are you 'tarded or something. Tracking ACoward can be much harder than an actual username. Logged in users with a long posting history leak all kinds of information about who they are, information that can possibly trace back to them without an IP address. At worst both just leave an IP, which if measures are taken, such as proxies or hacked machines can be near impossible to track.

Comment: Re:Mod up 1000+ (Score 1) 448

>I propose all arms going to third parties be given rounds with propellants / explosives that chemically degrade over time.

That's not going to happen.

We still shoot ammo made in WW2. It's very likely many of the mortars fired in the past decade were produced in the Vietnam era. 18 months is silly stupid short in itself and you are begging for defeat. Most of our own weapons are stockpiled for years if not decades before a conflict occurs. Because if a 'real serious' enemy shows up, all they have to do is hit your chemical industry and game over, you only have a year of ammo left at most. Even worse, you're not going to stockpile the amount of weapons needed to keep a hypothetical strong Russia or China needed from overwhelming you because you are risk adverse to going bad. Lastly your weaponry has to work reliably in all conditions, not just the desert, you have the jungle, the sea, the frozen wastes. You are really just begging for your own soldiers to get killed.

Comment: the Outdated TI-84 Plus Still Holds a Monopoly (Score 1) 359

by l3v1 (#47825521) Attached to: How the Outdated TI-84 Plus Still Holds a Monopoly On Classrooms
"the Outdated TI-84 Plus"

That's stupid: it's not outdated, it's just old, but nevertheless, it works quite well. I still have my 83, haven't used it for many years now, but still check the batteries in it from time to time to be sure it'll never die :) I guess it's more nostalgia at this point for me, but still, these things were/are quite great. Yes, pricey, but I don't mind paying some extra for a tool that lasts forever (and they seemingly do).

Comment: to make up for the lost revenue (Score 2) 611

by l3v1 (#47720491) Attached to: Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year
" each user would have to pay about ã140 ($230) to make up for the lost revenue"

This sounds crazy, I hope someone realizes that. "Lost revenue" in a businness which only has any revenue at all, because soeone somewhere thought that choking the Internet in a tide of ads must be a good businness model... "Losing" that "revenue" would be lost to those companies who built on this idiotic assumption, also this businness is one of those who drive the whole web into sh*t in the long run.The Internet would function fine, their only problem is that they've grown used to the high revenue stream and reducing or losing it would hurt them. But saying that they couldn't live with a reduced ad revenue and they'd need to push all that revenue's source onto customers to survive is also idiotic - who says they need to have the level of revenue they actually have, or that they actually need to survive at all? :)) I wouldn't mind seeing some of them disappear, they are no friends of mine, that's for sure.

Comment: it should be just a matter of common sense (Score 1) 147

by l3v1 (#47669069) Attached to: T-Mobile To Throttle Customers Who Use Unlimited LTE Data For Torrents/P2P
While I can understand T-mob. in this case, they - and others as well - could just do what my mobile internet provider in Europe (not T-mob.) does: I got a data package with 10GB of monthly limit with all the constraints (e.g., no torrent use) for average use, but from midnight to 8:00am in the same package they give a separate 100GB monthly allowance without any restrictions at all (and at LTE speed). This way they can force the heavy users out of the more crowded intervals, and everyone can be happy. Oh, the best part, the whole thing costs only ~$20/month....

Comment: Energy costs? (Score 1) 421

by PlusFiveTroll (#47640049) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: Should Schooling Be Year-Round?

Me>So you want year round school in the south, but do you want to pay for it?

Other person>But it's the same amount of days, they are just spread apart differently.

Me> But not all days are created equal, when it's 105F out, you're spending a whole lot of electricity to keep the place cool. Even worse, most school busses are not equipped with air conditioning and would have to be refitted or replaced.

Comment: Learn more during summer (Score 1) 421

by PlusFiveTroll (#47640019) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: Should Schooling Be Year-Round?

This is a huge point most educators miss. School actually teaches you very little about life outside of school. School is a very limited subset, and very unrealistic reproduction of reality. If I don't like where I work, I get a different job. Unless your parents move (or are rich) you don't get another school. A huge part of a vast portion of society will working alone or in small groups. Not in a room with 20+ other people with the same task.

Comment: univ. education (Score 1) 205

by l3v1 (#47612873) Attached to: MIT Considers Whether Courses Are Outdated
My view of university education (having an MSc, a separate BSc, and a PhD) has always been that up until MSc (or until BSc, that very much depends on the country and on the followed traditions of education) the point is to get a fairly diverse _introduction_ into as many related [to your main subject] topics as possible, from people who are somewhat knowledgeable in the area, with more deeper knowledge in a lower number of specific areas. Not to make you a jack-of-all-trades in CS for example, but to prepare you to know where to do and where to look and where to start if you'll require deeper knowledge in some other area of your field than the one in which you got deeper intro earlier. That, and survival, i.e., get you acquainted with an environment where you don't only have to learn and be good in one specific topic, but be able to quickly pick up superficial and sometimes deeper knowledge in a related field as well, and be able to produce some results in a short time period. Plus, add the networking possibilities, the opportunity to meet people and gather connections for your later professional life (if you get lucky). You don't get these if you get your degree by doing online courses and from libraries.

Given the above, I don't think longish courses are doomed, they have their places, but one has to have the ability to judge which ones do, retain them, and complement them with some others which have shorter periods and get you more diversified knowledge, which don't necessarily require face-to-face presence or on-site experience. They have to find the proper balance.

I wouldn't support to give total control in the hand of the students when preparing their courses and modules, since that might result in a too diverse graduate pool - some which have very narrow and deeper knowledge, and some who only have very shallow knowledge in several areas but none actually usable for anything. They simply don't have the necessary experience to be their own guides.

Comment: Re:Ok Cupid.... (Score 1) 161

by PlusFiveTroll (#47555563) Attached to: OKCupid Experiments on Users Too

>The particularly stupid part was messing with their match algorithm.

You are making a false assumption because you are dealing with a biological system.

If you made a screen to sift sand, that screen will reliably sift sand of a certain size because they sand has no choice in the matter and does not evolve.

On the other hand if you make an antibiotic that kills bacteria X you will quickly find out that in just a few generations almost all of bacteria are resistant to the antibiotic.

Culture evolves, religious views change, human relationship standards evolve. 50 years ago it was probably a bad idea to pair a black guy and white woman, not so much so these days (in most places). Saying that a sorting process is going to stand up to that change, when that sorting process itself feeds back in to the system is pretty unrealistic.

Comment: Re:what? (Score 2) 161

by PlusFiveTroll (#47555531) Attached to: OKCupid Experiments on Users Too

>lying about compatibility on a dating site.

Here's the gist of it, they already were lying about compatibility, or at least what you think of as compatibility. Different cultures have distinctly different criteria for selecting mates and it evolves over time. There is no golden rule, no algorithm, no magic. They throw a bunch of different shit at the wall and see what sticks. Why they look so good at finding matches is not actually finding matches but weeding the unmatchable out. Take them out, and most other people can date a pretty wide range of other people with just a few points of similarity.

The fact you don't think that their matching changes over time boggles my mind. Culture evolves and changes, technology evolves and changes, communication evolves and changes, to think some kind of static algorithm could possibly work at matching people under those influence is insanity.

No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.