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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Cool but probably not feasible... (Score 0) 533

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until real rebuttal arrives, say from someone who can point out actual errors in the proposal.

Translation: Somebody asked a valid question, but it impugns my hero, and thus I must write a handwaving reply praising the 'hero' and cursing the person who dares to question him.

Comment Re:And so it begins (Score 1) 533

I think Mr. Musk has demonstrated four times now that he is the financial equivalent of riding a unicycle across a tightrope while juggling bananas.

To believe that requires... well, either an incredible disconnect from reality or... well, there really isn't another option though I could speculate at length as to the causes.

Elon Musk takes technology that's been languishing on the bench and turns it into viable companies.

Well, considering he's founded pretty much only one viable company to date - that's a bit of a stretch. (Neither Tesla nor SpaceX are viable at this point.)

Yes, I do see a pattern.

I do too - unabashed hero worship, admantium blinders, and a stack of special pleadings from here to the Moon.

Comment Re:Staistics (Score 1) 308

The justification is that darker complexioned young men tend to commit crimes and therefore they should be investigated. The justification is that when we do stop such people, crime rates fall, therefore we are stopping criminals. The counter argument is that even if such people may in fact commit crimes at an increased rate, it is not in the best interest of the country to take a group of people and deprive them of rights or privileges simply because they are part of a dangerous group.

Let look at two examples based on driving. Driving is a privileged, not a right, and therefore it should be easy to pass laws to severely reduce the death of innocent people. Three groups are arguably predominately responsible for deaths of innocent bystanders involving vehicles. One are drunk drivers, which are being dealt with as a nation. The other are the very young and the very old. We could cut the deaths caused by these dangerous drivers significantly by two simple laws. The first would restrict the driving of any minor. Right now it is restricted for a number of months, or a year, but we could easily say 1 passenger and no driving after 10, without a special waiver, for anyone under 19, with any accident resulting in a year increase.This would likely result in the deaths of families of four caused by distracted teens a few times a year, and well as a myriad of other deaths. It would likely reduce insurance of all of us.

Likewise we could demand that anyone over 70 take a full drivers exam every year. If anyone over 60 has a ticket, they have to take a full drivers exam. This would end the death of innocents shopping at farmers markets.

Why do we not make these common sense precautions that save lives? Because we do not want to infringe on the rights of the great majority of drivers who are skilled and law abiding. Just because a few show criminal negligence, we do not punish everyone.

Comment Re:And so it begins (Score 1, Insightful) 533

Just because he can hire enough experts to do what has already been done or mostly done... doesn't mean he can do everything or anything. This isn't Paypal, which took existing technology and convinced people to use him rather than the banks. Nor is this SpaceX, which has taken existing technology and may (someday) provide commercial space travel by hiring existing experts. Nor is this Tesla, which took existing technology... I think you see the pattern.

(Seriously, if you believe that someones ability to eat a banana proves that that can ride a tricycle across a tightrope, you'd abandoned all common sense.)

Comment Re:Classic dragnetting problem (Score 1) 413

Yes, but if they have a target they can analyze the data with respect to that target. If you get on their radar they can pull up & analyze everything they have on you. And it's cheap to store massive amounts of data. What it comes down to is the government will have supreme power over anybody they don't like... which is not a good thing.

One proposed solution I've heard to this (other than not dragnetting everything) is to "escrow" the data with the courts or other appropriate oversight body. The key is that the oversight body must have as rights assurance and correct procedure as its primary goals. So the dragnet could be total, but intelligence and law enforcement officials wouldn't actually be able to use the data unless they had specific, lawful reasons to do so.

As a practical matter, if the data is encrypted at rest the oversight body needn't actually take responsibility for storing the data, just for holding the decryption keys.

Comment Re:Movie ad's disguised as science news? (Score 1) 545

There would be far less complexity if the Ultra Rich decided to purchase something like Australia as well as all the drones that you could stick a shake at to attack anything that came within 500 miles, and then for sport lob a few high yield explosives into population centers that appear to be getting a little too uppity.

Dear would-be Rich Overlord:

I'll see your drones, and raise you one toxic airborn virus (vaccine not included), released as part of a dusting upwind of Australia along one of the prevailing jetstreams.

--(signed) One Uppity Human

Would be Overlord (between hacking coughs, spewing phlem laced with the remnants of his decaying internal organs): the space station idea might have been worth the cost...(more hacking coughs, followed by his final expiry)

Comment Re:you know what they say: you cant trust google (Score 1) 80

Using Occams razor, there are enough skilled people in the community to know if there is any malicious code maintained by Google and that its not possible that all of them are in on the conspiracy (the more people in a conspiracy the less secret it is, the whole "information wants to be free" thing).

That's a valid point. Another to consider is that Google's culture and the type of people that Google hires accomplish the same thing, even more so than Apple or Microsoft, though honestly the same dynamic occurs there. If your focus is on hiring the brightest and you don't much care if they're particularly housebroken, you'd better not have any deep secrets you want kept. For that matter, the (semi-serious) joke inside Google is that if you're doing anything nefarious you'd better keep it secret from Sergey as well, because he's not particularly housebroken.

People complain that google wants to sell ads and collect some personal information (to sell presumably)

Actually, Google doesn't sell personal information. Google just uses it to target ads, and if you don't want to be targeted you can opt out.

Comment Re:He was the Creative Director (Score 0, Flamebait) 248

This is what happens when you work for someone else. You do things they don't like you get fired. It really has nothing to do with management. It has to do with common sense.

I know this is not directly related, but we saw this in the Boston thing. Common sense says when bullets are flying you go the other direction. We had all these people running towards it trying to get photos. Bullets can be fatal even from a mile away.

So you are in a meeting where tension is running high, and you start doing something that common sense tells you is going to antagonize your boss or a c-level executive. Yeah, that is really smart. Someone like that deserves to keep their job. Maybe the nest thing that person is going to do is watch videos while they are driving, because, you know, you have an inherent right to do stuff like that.

Life lesson. If you do something dumb, just let it go. The Streisand effect. Now the entire internet knows how dumb this guy is.

Comment Re:Notify Xerox First (Score 1) 163

And corporations don't always fix problems, even serious ones, until they receive wider attention.

And even if they did, how many people would know about the fix to ask for it? At least now it's gotten enough publicity that a lot of users know about the problem and can use the workarounds until an official fix is available (if one is even possible, given the nature of the problem). If I had one of these copiers, I'd sure be reviewing my recent uses to make sure this wasn't going to substantially affect me. All of that's possible only because he told the world, unless you really believe from the bottom of your heart that Xerox themselves would have made this knowledge so public.

Comment Nope (Score 1) 240

"The application process is ongoing; have you signed up?"

Nope. I'm not a fool.

And I suspect all but a tiny number of those signed up would turn tail and run if and when they were actually selected and it came time to board. The number of people chasing a 'net fad is pretty much meaningless.

Slashdot Top Deals

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T