Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:The problem is depth perception (Score 1) 49

Your eyes are far better at matching light frequencies between both eyes to get the depth mapping correct. Your standard camera can only distinguish 24 bits of light frequency. At that level you get somewhat of a depth map but not a very good one.

Waymo uses LIDAR, not visual light cameras. It gets an extremely accurate depth map, far more accurate than any human could, because LIDAR measures the time it takes light to reach the "seen" object and bounce back to the receptor.

In a 3D mapped world, all the depth information is 100% accurate.

Which is only slightly better than LIDAR-derived depth information.

Comment Re:Problem is true waste is hidden (Score 1) 249

Sorry, there was some bad typing there. Consider children of single mothers on welfare - there are two groups, one whose mothers are forced to work, others who are not. Studies show that the children in the group with mothers who are forced to work are (a) more likely to end up on welfare and (b) more likely to go to jail. What these imply is that any benefit of "seeing a work ethic" is outweighed by the lack of a parental influence. Certainly, these studies suggest we should not force welfare moms to work.

There may be some changes, once kids are in school.

Comment Re: I think I speak for all of us here (Score 1) 73

So, not for moral reasons at all


they saw hacking as a "moral crusade", said Paul Hoare, senior manager at the NCA's cybercrime unit, who led the research. Others were motivated by a desire to tackle technical problems and prove themselves to friends

I realize that reading the article is too much to ask, but reading the summary really isn't.

Comment I think I speak for all of us here (Score 1) 73

I think I speak for all of us here when I say: Duh?

I mean, I'm glad they've realized this, but rather disappointed they didn't figure it out, oh, 30 years ago, back when kids were hacking the phone system. I mean, even back then some of them "stole" quite a bit of value in the form of hours-long international telephone calls (which used to be really expensive, not like now), but clearly the monetary value was irrelevant, except perhaps as a way to keep score.

Some of those kids grow up and turn their skills to deliberate crime for profit, sure. But I think it's always been clear that basically none of them start that way. Honestly, I don't think it's even possible. There has to be an overpowering love of and fascination with the technology at the beginning, that almost certainly overshadows any interest in material gain. Later, the glamor of the tech fades a bit, but that takes years.

Comment Re:Yeah, Climate Change isn't real /sarcasm (Score 1) 302

And the Republicans insist climate change isn't real . . . well maybe when half the red leaning states are under water they'll open their eyes. Probably be way too late by that point though.

I wouldn't count on that. A lot of red-leaning states are inland, while the coasts are 2/3 blue.

Comment Re:One day they'll discover the folly.... (Score 1) 84

If it is used as a password (IE: no other authenticating properties), it's a password.

Only if you conflate all authentication with password authentication.

In short, if someone obtains that representation and is able to utilize it, the user is toast

That statement is correct, but note that it contains two parts: (a) if someone is able to obtain the representation and (b) if someone is able to utilize it. This, in a nutshell is the difference between password and biometric authentication. With passwords, the hard part is (a), and (b) is easy. With biometrics, the hard part is (b), and (a) is easy. Exactly how hard (b) is depends on the details of the system.

Comment Re:Choices. (Score 1) 106

then you easily come to the conclusion that something must be preventing people from building housing

Your Econ 101 answer ignores a lot of things. For instance, houses are not interchangable. So, building 2 houses is frequently less profitable than one bigger one. In fact, complexes where I live are being replaced by smaller, more expensive ones. You also ignore that there is a limiting factor in land. Capitalism works great for shoes, because you can produce as many as you want. Housing faces a much quicker falloff in marginal benefits (as you leave urban areas). Further, the "they" was intentional. Unless you have a large plot of land, you cannot replace it with more smaller apartments. So, either a high rise, or a few acres or something. But, that becomes prohibitive to collect, because those are already owned by people. So, there really tends to be oligopoplies of real estate groups that can afford to build new housing in areas.

Housing also is one of the areas with huge externalities, so obviously there needs to be regulation.

Comment Re:Problem is true waste is hidden (Score 1) 249

don't let facts get in the way of a good story, but even if their mothers don't work, the average number of jobs per adult in areas with lots of welfare moms is more than 1. That is, they are poor because they have non-well paying skills, not a lack of work ethic.

But, more importantly, as I said: studies show that children of welfare kids do worse with regards to "not going to jail or themselves ending up on welfare". So, whether you think seeing such a "work ethic" is important, it clearly is empirically worse for the child. As, you know, being less likely to go to jail or end up on welfare seems to be ending the "cycle of squalor", which happens when mothers mother.

If you're wondering why I put "work ethic" in quotes, it's because I think parenting well is a job. Not one well recognized monetarily, but certainly a job.

Comment Re:This is meaningless..... (Score 1) 356

Truth is stranger than fiction so why not?

I'm of a number of minds about the situation anyway:
Assange isn't above the law and should have at a minimum been interrogated by the swedish judge and possibly been behind bars
Assange's claim for a noble reason for jumping bail is bogus - the U.S. can extradite him easier from the U.K. than from Sweden.
Wikileaks is nothing more than the mouth of Putin's dirt excavations and as such is just as dirty as those whose dirty laundry he exposes.

Assange's self-assumed impunity to prosecution is overblown:
- He's never been on U.S. soil & isn't a U.S. citizen - not needed to for prosecution of knowingly spreading classified materials
- They'll never catch me! - Only if Moreno, who has replaced Correa decides he's worth the hassle.
- I'll make a stink! - Any stink Assange makes is tiny compared to Trump's self-made scandals.
- Putin will protect me! - Everyone now sees that Wikileaks "independence" is fake. Putin will easily find another mouthpiece that isn't as transparent as Wikileaks has become.

Comment Re:One day they'll discover the folly.... (Score 1) 84

It looks like you don't understand yourself. Otherwise you would not claim that biometric authentication is not comparable to password authentication, and then conclude it is better than PIN authentication.

You need to re-read the post you responded to. Nowhere did I say that biometric authentication cannot be compared to password authentication. I said a biometric is not a password. The security models are different, but that does not mean they cannot be compared. Also, I did not say that biometric authentication is unambiguously better than PIN authentication. I said it's better in some ways and not as good in others, and overall, for this application, this threat models, it's "on par". That means "about as good".

Comment Re:Yeah, let's get voiceprints for everyone ... (Score 1) 48

Does anyone stop to think that Google could be a front for the NSA

No. Why would they risk the (currently theoretical, but may someday happen) Congressional oversight on data use. As a private company, they have way more ability to abuse your data. And, if they ever wanted the NSA to fuck up your life, they could instead forward selected bits to them.

Slashdot Top Deals

I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere.