Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Also ban cars (Score 1) 157

by mjwx (#48463607) Attached to: Cameron Accuses Internet Companies Of Giving Terrorists Safe Haven

learn how to argue valid points

Given that Cameron is arguing that we should take another step down the slope, your claim that their claim of a slippery slope is invalid is invalid.

Here's why it's a fallacy.

Cameron is just trying to detract from his growing unpopularity with statements like this. Tony Abbott in Australia did the same thing, a huge police operation across 3 cities arresting 17 people made big headlines on the same day he released very unpopular policies... Obvious the policies were buried under the HUGE ANTI-TERROR ARRESTS on the front page.

Of the 17 people arrested in these raids, 16 were released without charge, the remaining person had a fine for a weapons misdemeanour (unsecured ammunition).

So people thinking this is a huge slippery slope are reading too far into it, it's just a politician trying some hand waiving to distract from growing voter dissatisfaction.

Comment: Re:What about long-term data integrity? (Score 1) 247

by mjwx (#48463545) Attached to: How Intel and Micron May Finally Kill the Hard Disk Drive

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't SSD's have a point where they put on too many write's per bit?

They do, but it's high enough that your computer and hard drive will be obsolete and replaced well before the point you reach it. Even if you keep your computer for a decade. I'm more concerned that every SSD I've owned has had a serious bug discovered after I bought it.

Crucial M4 - the 5000 hour bug.
Samsung EVO - slowdown bug.

I like SSD's but I have to question the maturity of the technology.

Comment: Re:Inescapable fact of FPS games (Score 1) 175

by mjwx (#48463505) Attached to: Top Counter-Strike Players Embroiled In Hacking Scandal

I do not understand why companies like EA, Valve, etc do not just subscribe to the hacks themselves and update the detection routines as soon as they come out. They have proven that they have technology that will catch the large majority of them.

Its not quite that easy.

Much like Valve, EA, et al.. the cheating software has it's own form of DRM to prevent reverse engineering. So it would be difficult to tell how the hack is affecting the game because they have little to no visibility on the hack.

Detecting cheaters server side is relatively easy in comparison. What I'd like to see is some software that would degrade the experience of cheaters, I.E. when a cheater is detected using an aimbot, decrease their accuracy or make 3 out of every 4 shots do nothing.

Comment: Re:As a side note, my own thoughts on future autos (Score 3, Insightful) 137

by mjwx (#48455547) Attached to: Here's What Your Car Could Look Like In 2030
The car of the future will look and act much like the car of today. In the last 50 years the basic premise of the car hasn't changed, 4 wheels powered by an engine controlled by pedals and a wheel.

There hasn't been a radical design change to the car because there's no need for one. By 2030 we wont have fully autonomous cars either. So all cars will still have a steering wheel, pedals and a gear selector (even if it's just D P and R in EV's).

This company is trying to pass off a futuristic looking kitchen table as a "future vision" car whilst ignoring that their glass box as an office workspace has the following problems:
- Not aerodynamic.
- Top heavy.
- Glass has no protection from penetration.
- Cars wont be without manual controls in our lifetime (if nothing else, there will be people who like to drive).
- Has no space for energy storage or engines.
- Has no rear or forward visibility.
- Offers no privacy.
- Ugly as sin.

You can tell the company doesn't have a single engineer as they haven't even put in room for the basics like an engine and fuel tank/battery and dont seem to get that people aren't exhibitionists who like driving around in glass booths let alone considered the effects of inertia on items you place on the table.

Comment: Re:They can't even get the present right (Score 1) 137

by mjwx (#48455463) Attached to: Here's What Your Car Could Look Like In 2030

You'd think a 'future vision' company would know better than to provide some sort of brochure site that acts and works as poorly as this one does. Navigating through this was like trying to play a first person shooter using chopsticks to control the keyboard and mouse.

Hold on there.

These are "design and innovation professionals" not engineers. You cant expect them to have the web site working fluidly and intuitively. They've got to make sure the kerning is perfect and the corners are rounded just right.

It's not their fault you dont understand their future vision based communication sphere.

Comment: Re:people drop their phones :( (Score 1) 198

by mjwx (#48453669) Attached to: Corning Reveals Gorilla Glass 4, Promises No More Broken IPhones

then again I buy phones that are built properly

I can see you with a jewelers monocle going over the phone in the store. "This isn't going to do..." you declare as the Genius hands you another one to look at.

I am curious to how you determine a properly built phone.

First step is to leave the Apple store and go to a manufacturer that knows what "durable" is.

Seriously, I've had HTC, Samsung, Motorola and now an LG... All of them have been able to take a drop without cracking or warping.

BTW, I'm much more eloquent than that. I'd say "no, no, no good sir, this simply isn't going to suffice".

Comment: Re:In a Self-Driving Future--- (Score 1) 453

by mjwx (#48446743) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

Cheap and ubiquitous Self Driving Cars means

This is actually an argument for private ownership.

If they're cheap and ubiquitous to have one for everyone who wants to go to work at 8:00 (and there will be a lot of people going to work at that time) then they'll be cheap enough that they will be kept in most garages.

The problem you have is that everyone wants to go to work at the same time, but in order for a taxi-like system to be efficient it needs not to have hundreds of vehicles idle for most of the day. Depreciation, insurance costs, maintenance, cleaning and other costs on a fleet will eventually make sure that in order to cope with peak demand, prices will rise and in so doing make private ownership more attractive.

Above this, humans generally dont like to share. So Martin the middle manager can afford his own car, he would rather pay the premium for it than risk getting the same car that Danny the drunkard was vomited in last night.

Comment: Re:people drop their phones :( (Score 1) 198

by mjwx (#48446487) Attached to: Corning Reveals Gorilla Glass 4, Promises No More Broken IPhones

If you have a naked phone, what do you expect?

I expect it to survive an accidental drop.

I've never had a phone cover, they've all survived trips to the floor without shattering... then again I buy phones that are built properly.

Also, I tend to be a little bit careful with my things. I'd be lucky if I drop my phone every six months.

Comment: Re: OH GOODY (Score 1) 198

by mjwx (#48446451) Attached to: Corning Reveals Gorilla Glass 4, Promises No More Broken IPhones

Wrong. Apple are outdone on that front by Samsung, MS... You really should check your facts before showing the rest of /. how wrong you are. Some of us actually RTFA, read relevant info, and post knowingly. Hater.

Seems you need to take your own advice.

You should know that the $14 billion is for all Samsung Electronics products, everything from TV's to speakers to DVD players to car audio. It also covers things like sports team sponsorships (local and national). Of that $14 billion, only $401 Million was spent on phone advertising, Apple spent $333 Million in the same period whilst Samsung sells more phones, more models and across more segments. So on a phone to advertising dollar ratio, Apple spends a lot more.

Beyond all this, your article that you clearly didn't read demonstrated that this paid off for Samsung. Sure they tried to get an inflammatory "Apple pleasing" headline in but utterly failed as the content proved that Samsung's splurge on advertising worked. Also that article is 2 years old. The data is from 2012.

Besides, the GP was talking about hype, not advertising dollars. Apple whips the fanboys, like yourself into a huge frenzy over almost anything. The fact you need to cling onto little things like advertising spending shows how detached from reality you are.

So you really should check your own facts before showing /. how wrong you are.

Hater.

See my sig.

Comment: Re:Unlikely (Score 1) 453

by mjwx (#48446337) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

Yeah, but every time you engage the manual mode, your insurance company will ding you 500 quatloos.

The insurance company wont know.

Either they wont be permitted to (in places where there are strong consumer protections) or you'll modify the car to always report it's in autonomous mode.

Besides this, fully autonomous cars are decades away from real use. Even the third or fourth gen autonomous cars will have the fully autonomous system restricted to specially modified limited access roads. Suburban streets will still have to be driven around manually.

The "self-driving car" is a pipe dream shared by people with no idea about the complexity of the task. It's going to become the "flying car" of the 2000's. In 2040 you'll be in your retirement village shouting "where's my self-driving car" and shaking your withered fist in the air.

Comment: Re:In a Self-Driving Future--- (Score 1) 453

by mjwx (#48446319) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

I don't own a car in the present, nor do I especially want or need to.

I've always found the smugness in this statement interesting.

Vehicles and the "free" (as in freedom to move around) national highway transportation system are one of the greatest achievements in the history of mankind. The places I am able to take myself everyday represent a massive freedom for me, and I don't want to live my entire life within a city radius unless I rent someone else's property. A wonderfully comfortable vehicle, with music streaming from a satellite, and traveling all over my country is exceedingly affordable where I live.. not sure where the downside is.

The GP is from the UK or Europe where there are significant artificial hurdles to car ownership. MOT inspections cut down on cheap used cars, insurance for a novice driver is stupidly expensive, living in the centre of London parking space is at a premium and there's a daily congestion charge.

The insurance alone in the UK is enough to kill it. It's not unusual for the insurance on someone's first car to be more than the cost of their first car.

Comment: Re:In a Self-Driving Future--- (Score 1) 453

by mjwx (#48446291) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

I figure you could still drive on dedicated tracks, much like people can still ride horses.

Which doesn't help much if you need to tow things like boats, jetskis, trailers, etc.

The people who think that self-driving cars and not owning cars are a good idea tend to be people who live in dense urban areas and know little to nothing about the rest of the world. What they fail to understand are all of the circumstances where a generic rental and/or self-driving just will not cut it. Like it or not, any self-driving highway is going to have to make accommodations for human guided vehicles.

This.

There's nothing wrong with people who live in large cities with good public transport systems that already dont need cars... but what these people forget is their city is not the norm.

Above that, people want to own personal transport. Not everyone wants to sit on a bus or train with everyone else, certainly people wont want to wait 45 minutes for the next Johnny Cab to become available when they can own their own car. Private ownership of cars will not change significantly with autonomous cars (fully autonomous cars are still decades away) because the same motivation for owning private transport will not have changed.

Comment: Re:In a Self-Driving Future--- (Score 1) 453

by mjwx (#48446261) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

Compared to a computer, a human is utterly incompetent to operate any heavy machinery. The reaction times and accuracy just aren't there, and never will be. That makes you comparatively dangerous, no matter how 'law abiding' you might be.

That is, if the human and computer are doing exactly the same pre-programmed job at the same time.

The problem with autonomous cars is that you cant pre-program every single scenario so it has to be capable of making decisions on the fly with limited information... that is where the human has a massive advantage over computers. When your laptop encounters an error it cant compensate for or even understand, it stops dead... this is not a feature you want in cars because stopping dead is often just as bad.

The thing is, a computer can put the brakes on faster than a human, but the human can determine why the brakes need to be on faster than a computer.

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -- Albert Einstein

Working...