Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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 Alternative: (Score 4, Interesting) 126

How about discussing the best that could happen - and how to encourage it?

I've said it before and I'll risk repeating myself here: Artificial intelligence != artificial malice. AI isn't going to want to destroy humanity unless we program it to. Therefore job #1 is to keep these decisions out of the hands of the military. Problem solved.

Comment Re:The problem here is... (Score 1) 644

Do you think an AI will eventually feel compassion? Do you think an AI will be capable of producing art that is anything better than mimicry? Will artificial intelligence dream? We are no closer to understanding true consciousness today than we were 100 years ago. So to answer your question, I'm not especially worried. There will always need to be someone to tell the computer how to think more like a human.

Comment Re:The problem here is... (Score 1) 644

I agree to a point, but the pay scales in IT are commensurate with the value of the work. As far as I'm concerned, the IT field shot itself in the foot 15 years ago when every billboard out there was advertising that you could get your MCSE for a few hundred bucks, then you'd immediately be qualified to go out and make $90k/year. The market was essentially flooded with unskilled "skilled" workers. Yes the value of a MCSE went through the floor and yes, those people never achieved what they were promised, but that's how this whole thing works. The assumption was wrong that the industry needed all those people, when in reality, the tools were also being improved, allowing for fewer workers to do more, and therefore a stratification of worker's skill sets occurred. Those with the best skills stayed in the field and make north of $110k now, and those who's dedication was superficial have gone on to do other things. The industry doesn't owe anything to those people who failed to bring their skills to the level of demand rather than the level of acceptance.

Personal example: I used to make web sites when hand crafted websites were all that was available. Then came the tools, like Macromedia Flash (later adobe flash), Dreamweaver, etc. Those tools helped but they didn't allow for the level of freedom and creativity that customers demanded, so there was still an industry in hand crafting websites. Later, when Drupal and Wordpress came along, two things happened: Capabilities of those tools improved to a level of acceptability to most clients, and most clients moved their expectations down to meet the level of the tools. There is no longer a market for fully hand crafted websites, and the term itself becomes laughable. If I was still in that market should I think to demand the same kind of relative pay that I was getting in the early years? NO! So I diversified my skills. Now I build internal business tools that incorporate machine learning into web-based applications. The web portion of the job is only necessary to connect the end user to the real product, the AI components that solve business problems. Once AI becomes plug and play I will move on to the next layer up. I plan on my job being obsolete, and I plan on accepting that and moving up.

The only thing that Is different between what you describe 50 years ago, and now, is that the pace of change used to be slower than a generation. So a person could learn a trade and live well doing it for their whole life. This has led to a sense of complacency in the current generation who believe that there was a time to learn, then a time to work, and they fail to realize that the time to work _is_ the time to learn, and the time to learn _is_ the time to work. Today a person needs to just accept that the skills they use today will not be necessary in a few years, and therefore they should watch the market and see what new skills and tools are coming out, and get on it. Plan to change your skill set several times in your life. In most cases your employer will pay for it.

Comment The problem here is... (Score 2, Insightful) 644

...thinking you are entitled to be the one to sell me an adjustable-rate mortgage. It doesn't need selling if I already know what I want. It is not enough to produce something... you must produce something of value. Full stop. Articles like this give me the sense that the author is irritated by the fact that status quo isn't good enough. There is plenty of work to do, it just might not be the work you are accustomed to doing, and arguments like this have been debunked over and over again. The cotton gin obviated a lot of jobs, but people rose up and did more sophisticated work. Computers obviated a lot of jobs, but people rose up and did more sophisticated work. Robots and AI will obviate a lot of jobs, and people will still rise up and do more sophisticated work. The moral of the story here is get up off your lazy ass and do more sophisticated work. We've not yet begun to reach our potential as a race.

Comment Re:$700 GTFO (Score 1) 151

I wish I had mod points for you good A/C. In my world, $700 doesn't buy very much, so the relative value of this card is pretty high! And as others have already pointed out in this thread, there are uses besides gaming. I'm looking at buying a pair for running an Inception instance under TensorFlow. Not everyone is here for the gaming, and these cards are phenomenal middle of the road compute cards... if the proof of concept works out, we will of course be buying much more expensive cards (like in the 24gb range) for production, but for prototyping, this is pretty awesome!

Comment Re:Strict liability for writing code? It's coming (Score 1) 64

The problem is the rigor that is applied to code writing doesn't exist the same way as it does in other engineering fields... something I agree needs to change. If the education standard were higher, then it would be no problem to hold people accountable when their bridges fail and their code leaks personal information.

Comment Re:Alterterior Motives... (Score 1) 292

I think you missed my point completely, and therefore simply whitewashed everything.

Please explain the math behind your "1% chance of receiving an intact transmission due to noise and interference" statement. You can't make that claim without laying down some facts. I've pulled down TPMS sensor traffic (that has a nominal range of 20') at distances of over 300' with the use of a simple HDTV antenna and a $20 RTL-SDR, and I did it in sprawling suburban traffic density, not out in the boonies somewhere. It's actually way easier than you think.

Forget about identifiers for a second. Directional antennas can provide significant rejection of off-axis signal, while boosting on-axis SNR. If you are listening in a specific direction using a steerable antenna or a phased array, and if (like TFA states) the target vehicle is transmitting up to 10x/sec, I can string together a series of broadcasts to determine a trajectory. It doesn't matter if the target vehicle switches identifiers, because I'm not talking about tracking by identifier. I'm saying that at 10x/sec the resolution is tight enough that under traditional Newtonian physics, I can deduce which packets belong to the target car. Basic trigonometry can provide a solution from my location to the target's anticipated location to keep the antenna pointed in the right direction. This is totally possible, and it can be done with probably less than $2000. A laptop, a high end SDR and a small steerable yagi should be enough to get you there. That's cheaper than the infrared goggles you mention, let alone the helicopter, and requires no training for a surveillance team.

About encryption: I'm not suggesting the entire protocol has to be compromised. The transmitting car can't know who is going to receive the message, and negotiating an encrypted connection takes too long (think closure rate of two vehicles traveling head on at 70 mph). Some messages may well be encrypted, but the secret must be pre-shared among manufacturers if any vehicle is to decrypt any other vehicle's traffic. Therefore, it's only a matter of time before keys are leaked, and abused... but with the cops, it won't even be a leak: the cops will just ask for the keys and get it. Once the cops have it, someone will figure out a way to steal it from them and voila! But more importantly, the unencrypted data provides enough to do what I'm talking about.

You are right though... the cops will probably just put an antenna on every streetlight just like they want to do with video cameras... then they can track you from the comfort of their multi-million dollar control center downtown. But what you are wrong about is that it is not really going to change anything. That's what they said about social security numbers. In fact it will change a lot of things. Anything that is made easier, is made easier for the good guys as well as the bad guys. If you don't see the opportunity here, then your'e intentionally ignoring it. It only takes one or two bad eggs... every police organization has the potential to have someone who abuses their power. And every new technology is exploitable, because the people who create them are not half as clever as those who wish to profit from it. Whether it's the cops or the criminals or both, this tech will do some good, and it will also do some harm.

Comment Re:Alterterior Motives... (Score 3, Insightful) 292

Exactly... this is the part that worries me... they talk about 128 bit encryption and all that jazz, but this isn't a negotiated connection people... it's transmitting your telemetry in the blind, hoping that others will act on it. As such, everyone will be using the same encryption key, which will make it trivial for someone to transmit false information. There are literally dozens of ways I can think to abuse this capability for fun and profit.

The other issue is this: The expected range these operate at is defined by the size and quality of the antennas they intend to use, but with improved listening capability the range is much further. They claim to not transmit any specific identifying information, but if it broadcasts 10x/second, then it's pretty trivial to follow if you can receive real time. Imagine how easily you can tail a car now that you can stay out of visual range and still know exactly where they are? Tell me the police won't want that capability.

Comment Re:No, just no (Score 1) 560

So do you take Benadryl recreationally? I think you're missing the point that some drugs are useful for things, but aren't habit forming, therefore it's easy to walk away from them when you don't need them anymore; thus you remain in control. Other drugs typically get regulated in some way because they ARE habit forming. The user of the drug expresses the desire to stop using the drug yet doesn't have the willpower. Cigarettes are a great example of what happens when an addictive drug goes largely unregulated. Look at the strain on our healthcare system caused by long term smokers. If you care about other people lying in a hospital bed drowning in their own fluids, you might say this is already tragic. But if you don't, just look at what is coming out of your pocket to subsidize the healthcare of smokers. Every time you pay your insurance premium, you are subsidizing those who can't pay for it themselves.

Getting back to pot, maybe the risks aren't the same, but you can't say there is no risk. So look far into the future you are arguing for, and imagine what might you be forced to subsidize for those users who can't or won't stop?

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't compare floating point numbers solely for equality.

Working...