Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: 32MB? (Score 2) 190

by mrchaotica (#49763279) Attached to: Google Developing 'Brillo' OS For Internet of Things

The trouble is that just about every fucking "IoT" device is designed to communicate over the Internet to the manufacturer's servers, even when it would make more sense for it to just communicate with a base station/server over the LAN and have the data never leave your house. Allegedly it's for ease of use, but that's bullshit -- it's for data-mining.

Comment: Re:bye (Score 3, Insightful) 524

by mrchaotica (#49750687) Attached to: Ads Based On Browsing History Are Coming To All Firefox Users

I'm a pack-rat and would like to archive whole tab trees for later, see them among the other pages, but not take memory+CPU now.

It's funny how the mobile (Android) versions of both Chrome and Firefox already manage to do this -- I can have 50+ tabs going on my phone and not run out of memory, although some of them will reload when I switch back to them -- but the desktop versions don't.

Comment: Re:Cost (Score 2) 134

by mrchaotica (#49744237) Attached to: Pre-Orders Start For Neo900 Open Source Phone

If it's sufficiently isolated from the rest of the hardware (so that it can't snoop on RAM or anything like that, so it can't override any firewall, and so that when the OS says it's off it's off), that's good enough for me. If the modem can't access any data I don't want it to have in the first place, then I don't have to worry about what it's doing with it.

Comment: Re:Click to play Flash (Score 1) 616

by mrchaotica (#49714327) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral

It's sort of hard to catch a drive-by when you've disabled the tech through which drive-bys enter your machine.

Quoted for truth!

And that's what the guy in TFS apparently doesn't get. The bottom line is that if you're sending me something I didn't explicitly ask for -- and at this point, all ads qualify -- then I am forced to assume that you are attacking my machine and will defend myself accordingly.

If you want to advertize to me, you can put static text directly on the page (not text generated by Javascript, and not text served from a third-party domain). These are my terms; you can accept them or go fuck yourself.

Comment: Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... (Score 3, Informative) 615

by mrchaotica (#49707353) Attached to: The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks

First of all, let's be honest: if someone is frail enough to require a walker, in many cases they're probably not healthy enough to be operating a vehicle in the first place. In an emergency, how are they going to press the brake pedal hard enough to actually stop effectively (i.e., hard enough that the ABS would kick in)?

Second, in the entire Metro Atlanta area I've only ever noticed one gas station that advertized full service. So how do disabled people around here get gas? Simple! Every staffed gas station, including self-service ones, is required by law to have the attendant pump gas for disabled people, rendering the whole thing a non-issue. (By the way, that's a Federal law -- the Americans with Disabilities Act -- so don't pretend as if it wouldn't apply in New Jersey and Oregon too!)

The bottom line is this: Why should able-bodied people be treated like drooling morons -- and have to pay more -- just so that some minimum-wage worker can pretend that he's useful? The answer is, no goddamn reason at all!

Comment: Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... (Score 3, Interesting) 615

by mrchaotica (#49706521) Attached to: The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks

There are no such people. I mean, if there were, then WTF would they do when they go on a trip to a different state? Stand next to the gas pump and act helpless, like a drooling moron?

I went to visit in-laws in Oregon a while back, and was amazed at how much of a pain in the ass getting gas there was. In normal states, you can just get out, pump the gas, pay, and leave. But in Oregon? In Oregon you have to wait in line for fucking ever because they have one guy running around handling all the pumps and there's a line of cars waiting because he can't keep up. People from Oregon say "oh, isn't it great how we don't have to pump our own gas?" No, it really fucking isn't! It's worse!

Comment: Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives (Score 5, Insightful) 615

by mrchaotica (#49706463) Attached to: The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks

What makes you think that the autonomous truck will hit the car just like a manned truck? I'd think that with the sensors on the truck tied directly into the autonomous control systems the autotruck could react thousands of times faster and more effectively than a human being truck driver.

Hmm... looks like somebody failed at learning Amdahl's Law.

Let's say a truck is driving at 60 MPH (88 feet per second) when somebody jumps in front of it, 88 feet away. The driver will take 0.5 seconds (44 feet) to react, then the truck's air-brakes will take another 0.5 seconds (44 feet) to engage. By that time, the truck will have hit the person. Then the truck will take another 355 feet to come to a stop.

Let's replace the human-driven truck with an automated one, and assume that the computer is unrealistically perfect and manages to reduce the reaction time to zero (seconds or feet). In that case, it still takes 0.5 seconds (44 feet) for the air brakes to engage, so the truck has "only" 311 feet of braking distance left to travel when it hits the person.

In other words, reaction time accounts for only about 10% of the total stopping distance, so the maximum improvement gained by switching to an autonomous truck would be about 10%. That's not zero, but it's also not "thousands of times" better, as you claimed.

Comment: Re:Ruining it for the rest of us (Score 1) 95

by mrchaotica (#49697505) Attached to: Drone Flying Near White House Causes Lockdown

You did, in the initial claim I quoted: "Let's be honest: These machines will only get better and better, meaning they'll be able to carry heavier and heavier payloads."

The point I'm trying to make is that you could have a drone capable of lifting a fuckton of payload right now, just by (for example) retrofitting autonomous controls to one of these.

In other words, since helicopters already exist in a wide range of sizes and capacities and autonomous controls could be fitted to almost any of them, there's no reason to think drones will get "better and better" (from an aircraft perspective) because were already so to begin with. The only part that's going to be getting "better and better" at a rapid pace is the software driving the damn things.

The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.