Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:These don't exist... (Score 1) 47

"You're not being deprived of something"

I'm being deprived of my right to privacy but more tangibly I'm being deprived of the value of the data they are stealing. My browsing history is data that belongs to me and only me and they are stealing that data and then selling it. The proceeds from any sale or use of my data are rightfully mine. They are also violating my copyright. My browsing history is a one of a kind creative work.

"it's information that you're sending them when you use your browser"

A quick change artist is literally being handed the incorrect amount of money by a representative of the company they are stealing from at the register, it is still theft. The same with me handing over my data in a man in the middle attack (which many of these collection tactics effectively are). It was not my intention to give them my data, I did not knowingly or willingly agree to their cookie or tracking, therefore it is also unauthorized systems access. And no, the legal section or terms and conditions section being present on one of the websites I visited does not constitute a meeting of minds.

Comment Re:Old news (Score 1) 125

"the problem is that the same physiological involuntary responses can be connected to so many different things it's not funny"

Which is the point I was making with the creamer example. You are measuring involuntary responses are generated by many things, a list which does not include deception. You may or may not be nervous as a consequence of lying but it is hard to imagine someone not being worried about the result of the key questions whether they are lying or not. They try to pump you with coffee before hand and make the experience as threatening as possible further amplifying the possibility the reason you are sweating isn't deception.

The biometric data may sometimes correlate with deception but there is no casual relationship. If there were you could use controls and filter the noise much like measuring the sound in an environment without the noise you want to detect in that environment and using the result to filter out the background noise when you are trying to detect a sound in that same environment. Examiners use control data to try to form a baseline like this with a polygraph but that doesn't work because the amount of truthfulness or deception in your statements has no direct relationship in involuntary biometric data. What does have a casual relationship is anxiety and the subject isn't going to be anxious about control questions vs "did you murder your wife."

Training is not about learning special techniques to fool the machine, the training consists of learning how the examination works and the machines work and reinforcing it in such a way that you truly believe it and therefore have no anxiety regardless of the question. It's purely a confidence building process.

A trained person will pass every time whereas untrained will get mixed results but those results have no relationship to whether or not they are being truthful in the case of someone who is.

Comment Re:Old news (Score 1) 125

"Don't fool yourself, they have some scientific basis in their application, it's not all just smoke and mirrors, there are reasons this device works."

There don't need to be reasons because the devices don't work. Just like the training for detecting lies using body language given to TSA investigators and police have been proven not to work over and over again. I've devised a lie detection system in which I have conversations with you while you make coffee and covertly take pictures of your coffee. Using several sample days in which I talked to you about innocuous things and then asked about things I know you are lying about but are safe innocent lies on other days. Finally, I asked you real questions. Studying the color of your coffee and therefore the amount of creamer you put in I judged whether or not you were telling the truth.

My system is based on the flawed assumption that your shaky (let's guess nervous) hand and inattentiveness translates into lying whereas the reality is that has nothing to do with lying. Show me the science behind your polygraph that differs from my method other than having more neat wires and looking all cool and medical-like. Hint: There isn't one.

Comment Re:Old news (Score 1) 125

"So it's more than just those who are susceptible to believe the polygraph, it does have some success. Efforts to beat the polygraph are largely ineffective and usually very detectable."

It has nothing to do with "beating" a polygraph. A polygraph isn't something you beat or don't beat. A polygraph in no way shape or form tests whether or not you are telling the truth and under normal circumstances it's results have zero relationship to whether or not you are telling the truth. It's just some random coincidental biometric data. You may as well be measuring the wind speed while asking me the questions or flipping a coin, either will have just as much connection to the veracity of the answers I'm giving which is to say absolutely zero.

"But I seriously doubt *you* could beat it unless you are a pathological liar who just doesn't care anything about truth, ethics or morals."

Whether or not I beat a polygraph has nothing to do with personal ability, pathological lying, or anything else but random chance the same as anyone else since the test results have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I'm telling the truth. Which is why, nobody should ever agree to take a polygraph unless you are guilty as hell, you know you were sloppy and there is evidence to find, and you are taking the 50/50 chance the random result will be a pass and they might not investigate deep enough to find said evidence. Otherwise, especially if you are innocent, you should never ever take a polygraph.

Actually, if anything, trying to "beat" a polygraph and treating like a real test is likely the only way to create a correlation between the results and whether or not you were telling the truth.

Do not confuse the fun and entertaining television show mythbusters with actual controlled science. They are conducting informal experiments for fun using sciencelike methods not engaging in actual science. Mythbusters also determined that CD's exploding in 56x CD-ROMs was a myth using a high rpm dremel tool. The problem is I personally replaced dozens of Acer 56x CD-ROMs when CD's had exploded in them rendering the drives useless. Mythbusters did not test all the conditions or all the possibilities and therefore came to an invalid result. Mythbusters is fun but I am able to point out flaws in their methodology on almost every episode. Also, mythbusters and other television shows intentionally spread misinformation to aid police efforts. This is the source of their bunk results on LIDAR, the old myth about needing to stay on the line to trace a phone call, even the new myth that it used to take 5 min but now they can trace you immediately if you are on the line. All of that is ridiculous, you make a call, a record is recorded of you making the call, the police have a hotline to a department in the phone company that exists just for looking up the records and the phone company works on the honor system for legal authority to do the lookup. Or at least they did in the 70's. Now they can probably just access the information directly with a computer. The police don't need you to stay on the line or even to be on the line, they can see where you made the call from in 30 sec, 5 min, or three months. There are no shortage of intentionally implanted subliminal messages and bunk truths on TV planted for the aid of law enforcement and if you ever plan a robbery based on what you've learned from TV you are screwed. The entire concept of needing to beat a polygraph, the tense moment, the need to be a psychopath/sociopath to defeat one. All TV myths spread to aid law enforcement.

"Polygraphs may not be a perfect tool, they *can* be manipulated by sufficiently trained people"

Polygraphs can be beaten simply by being aware they are nonsense. The sophisticated techniques for beating them really come down to nothing more or less than telling people the format and what to expect. There is a pdf linked TFS and a book mentioned in a comment already. Read either and upon finishing the reading you are done... done learning information designed to counteract the brainwashing into believing a polygraph that has happened in your life.

Wake up buddy. Polygraphs aren't real. And the probability that all the evidence the police found of someone's guilt really being as convincing as it sounds is on par with how compelling and convincing the signs of God's work are to a believer. When you look at reality through a focused lens of assumption suddenly everything looks like it is related to what you are looking for and suddenly total coincidences that occur for all of us every day look like "one hell of a coincidence."

Comment Re:Old news (Score 1) 125

They work for telling if you someone was nervous/stressed/hot/itchy/cranky/dumb enough to drink the offered coffee beforehand. Some dumb people might confess because you scared them with "science." They absolutely do not indicate whether or not someone is currently speaking truth or a lie... for anyone, anywhere, ever.

Comment Re:"Laser Strikes" define? (Score 1) 161

" If I get in trouble, I'll tell them you said it was OK."

I officially endorse that is it green and that I've heard all my life that green is good for the Earth. Also, I read that on the Internet so it must be true.

Every time you use a green laser a Native American stripper walking down the highway in leathers loses his tears.

Comment Re:Good news (Score 1) 53

"of the highest technical quality"

That doesn't sound like the Chinese.

"to a low price"

That part does.

There are Chinese manufacturers aplenty making PCBs but if you actually want quality boards that consistently work and if populated are populated with the components you specified you order us or european boards and pay the couple dollars more.

At some point a lower price is actually more expensive due to the quality sacrifice to get there.

Comment Re:47 Billion of our money (Score 1) 53

And look at the economic benefits reaped by those countries. You just mentioned a four hundred year time span as each nation got it's chance and/or caught up, just add china to your list as they are just now getting around to it. In every case the nation mentioned became the global economic leader as a consequence.

What we in the US need to do and spread the wealth around to our population with a minimum income that we grow as much as possible and invest it in India and china so that chinese industry borrows wealth from us and pays us interest while we continue developing automations to do the actual work and eventually progress to the point where we are all independently wealthy.

Comment Re:Wuda Figered CN was #1 (Score 1) 53

And the world is a better place because of it. If only they'd disrespect, pirate, and open up the modeling and simulation tools for ASIC design.

More and more the world moves to standardized building blocks, open design specifications, clone off those designs manufacturing along with more and more accessible and affordable at home design and prototype fabrication. In 10-15 years chip features will no longer be shrinking, the technology and design tools will embrace an open commodity standard and I'll be able to design a custom chip as easily as I do a custom pcb today. In 20-25 years I'll be able to hit the print button on my 3D printer/assembler and it will combine conductive, magnetic, and insulating materials to build a fully integrated electronic that substitutes for all the functionality of a pcb+components today. Who knows, maybe I'll just print it as an integrated part of the enclosure and just add any consumables needed and plug it in. Then I'll upload my cool lavalamp design to thing-a-verse and anyone else who wants one can have one as well. Building new physical things and electronics will be no more difficult than 3d modeling and/or programming today.

Comment Re:I am wondering... (Score 1) 161

Yes, technically anything other than looking straight ahead at a perfect 90 degree angle. Of course, I highly doubt the beam is still anywhere near coherent at the range required to hit the plane head on with the near (but not quite) 90 degree angle at 10,000-30,000 ft and therefore no more dangerous than any other bright light on the horizon and blurred and blended with them even if it were the star wars defense system couldn't successfully track and hit targets with a narrow laser beam at that range so I doubt a guy holding one in his hand in the back yard is going to pull it off either and while air patterns are full and all that the sky is still actually almost entirely empty at all points in time the chance of randomly hitting anywhere near a plane by accident is essentially zero let alone the cockpit at that range.

Comment Re:But the real question is.. (Score 1) 184

Performance capability is what I meant. OpenGL is really just an API so it doesn't actually have a performance per se, individual implementations would. But Linux is a much higher performing platform in almost every area than windows.

Unfortunately with Linux+OpenGL you have bits that are neither Linux or OpenGL which are the driver implementation and the game engine implementation and those things have been optimized for DirectX. Given that linux provides a more performant and stable base system all else being equal there is no reason to believe a game+driver combination optimized for Linux wouldn't outperform the same for windows.

But all else isn't equal, there are more developers well versed in DirectX than OpenGL and there is a larger potential pofit pool targeting windows than Linux. For now, Linux has had similar challenges to face in almost every area it now dominates... which is basically every computing area but games these days.

Neither windows nor MacOS dominate games either, consoles dominate video gaming today. PC gaming used to be where power gamers went but now it is mostly only the platform of choice for simulations and very complex games that benefit from the large number of control inputs like MMORPGs.

Comment Re:"Laser Strikes" define? (Score 1) 161

"I wasn't trying to challenge you, I just really didn't know."

In that case I sincerely apologize for the snarky tone but instead hope my snarky response was at least informative. In short, the light on a plane is tiny and low power relative to sheer enormity and light output of a star the difference is vast even from so far away and there are so many they fill the entire sky where the plane is in just one place and easily hidden by cloud cover.

You can see the pointer because even though the sky might seem clear to us it is still filled with particles of dirt and moisture that highlight the beam. Actually you might even have seen this with high powered lights that aren't lasers when a car dealership has an event or there is a fair/circus or the like. Sometime those lights are powerful enough to see a beam that projects a fair distance up. On some nights you just see it reflect off the clouds but other nights you can actually see a beam project into the air.

Also often a night seems clear but there is still plenty of wispy cloud cover which will highlight where a beam is pointing.

Comment Re:Terrorists (Score 1) 161

There is no safety issue at play. Private or commercial, nobody should be regulating away everyone elses enjoyment of the stars to maximize their enjoyment being part of a tiny minority who gets to look down on the world. These things aren't even really visible except at night and they are flying with instrumentation then. Commercial pilots aren't even actually flying the plane except during takeoff and landing, frequently they are napping in that cockpit.

As for the rich thing.

They are rich and therefore people who are trying to use a federal agency to prevent the people who worked for the wealth they are enjoying from enjoying what is left and free, the stars. I have no sympathy. It is not punishing the rich to support putting them on the same level as everyone who is not rich. It is not punishing the rich to reach the immediate conclusion that any benefit they get to enjoy should be denied immediately if it infringes on everyone who is not rich. There are million times more people in the 99.999% by wealth than the top 0.001% by wealth and since there are million times more of them their interests are a million times more important which makes the least of the common mans interest more valuable than the most important of the top 0.001% percents interests should they conflict.

For example there is a million times more merit to proposing free national mayo clinic level healthcare for everyone but the top 0.001% funded entirely by a tax on the 0.001% than in recognizing their right to property. Especially when the reality is that they no more have a right to property than we have a right to good health the only actual right is the right to take what you can and protect what you can and there are a lot more us ants than there are you grasshoppers.

You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.