Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:AI does what AI is programmed to do (Score 1) 159

The "DANGER of AI" is that the AI will be somebody's bitch. Whose?

AI is "merely" another form of power, and adversaries-who-have-power are always a threat. Don't worry about AI; you should worry about $THEM getting AI, thereby causing $THEM to have an edge over you.

100.0% of techs are just like this. When you're pointing your nuclear missile at someone else, it's good. When someone else is pointing one at you, it's bad.

Comment Re: Who cares? (Score 1) 502

because its a giant scam you imbecile.

Duh? That's why everyone wants something done about it. Externalizing pollution to get an easy subsidy isn't merely a scam, it's an old and obvious scam.

The trouble is, everyone does it. If I tell you to stop scamming everyone, then you'll tell me to stop scamming everyone. It's all well and fine for me to try to stop paying for your subsidy, but you better keep on paying mine!

Comment Re:I still don't get it. (Score 1) 128

How was it NOT extortion before the law?

I haven't found the text of the law to read, but I can guess.

I used to work for a place where, in the late 1980s and early 1990s we would occasionally sell ransomware to clients who had iffy credit. Pay your bill every month, and we'd send you an update to our software. Stop paying or don't install your update, and a time bomb would go off: it fails to start. The software's data wasn't encrypted or anything, but it was in a proprietary undocumented form, so it was effectively unusable. (Unless you set back your machine's clock, which would have some annoying consequences for data entry speed.)

I think what we were doing would probably be considered ransomware to most people.

The reason I wouldn't call that extortion, is that the client would agree to it beforehand (and without any coercion or duress) and they would get something of value (our software) in exchange that they previously didn't have. Don't wanna do it? Don't sign the license agreement. (Yes, back in those days, a license was actually a real contract, and customers would sign it and we'd put it in a filing cabinet. No after-the-fact "surprise! you didn't really buy this in spite of having thought so at the time you parted with your money!")

I think what we were doing would probably not be considered extortion to most people. (But I'm still glad I don't do that anymore.)

Comment Re:liability, permits, hazmat, max hours on duty, (Score 2) 97

At many truck stops youll see a kiosk for OO's (owner-operators) to browse available jobs.

And remember, if you don't like what you find in the mission computer, you can always go to the bar. At the bar, there's oftentimes someone hanging around waiting to offer a job to anyone who walks in. Maybe they'll hit you up to move some shadier cargo/contraband, or they'll offer pirate bounties, or they might even try to recruit you from freight missions to doing combat missions for the military!

For the latter, make sure you have upgraded all your truck's weapons and gotten your combat rating and legal status up. Also, get expanded fuel tanks. Invariably there will be some deep strike mission far from any good place to refuel. So you'll either have to have big tanks, or you'll have to hunt enemy truckers to take their fuel to get you back home.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 63

The whole point of NSLs is that there is no prior judicial oversight; there's no court to defy. I'm not saying they wouldn't be punished somehow, but it wouldn't be contempt of court. These things exist because there's some law that imposes a prior restraint on the receiver's speech. If it were to end up in court, you'd hear words like "first" and "amendment" long before you hear words like "contempt."

Comment "Sources?" (Score 1) 75

Did this sentence..

Eighty-four percent of Americans with online access through three sources -- home broadband, smartphone and tablet computer -- say they like having so much information available.

..strike anyone else as a weirdly alien concept of what the word "source" means? It's so incomprehensible, that I can't even say for sure that it's wrong!

Comment Re:Not people: It's a computer problem (Score 1) 394

So the day they make your particular fetish or recreational substance / entertainment / political stance / religion / etc. a crime...

You're an optimist, and overstating the safety and benevolence of this program. Quit sugar-coating it, you apologist! ;-)

Peoples' fetish, substance, etc is already illegal, somewhere. And since no government (including UK) has shown itself to have the ability to store things securely (it's almost as though they employ people), it is reasonable to assume the data is (or eventually will be) globally available.

UK citizens aren't just making a decision to totally and completely trust trust their own government forever. They are also deciding that they already fully trust the Russian government, the Chinese government, the Saudi government, criminals, etc and that they will always be able to trust those parties.

UK is declaring that this is one big happy world without any adversarial relationships, and that "security" is a totally obsolete concept.

Comment Re:And even here they don't know how it works (Score 1) 291

I think people are inferring too much heavy-handedness.

Look at it this way: Airplane mode successfully restricts radio use while airborne, because it is enabled by the user.

(See what I did there?) Correct operation is defined as the computer doing whatever the user wants it to do. The user is in charge of balancing convenience with desire-to-not-be-a-dick, so he'll select what is most appropriate for his needs.

Airplane mode works! It's great. It's one of the best, most successful, easily-understood interfaces we have. You damn well know that in the early days, there was a discussion where some absolute fuckwit at the table said, "We'll need an altimeter, or maybe just use the GPS..." and he was cut off by the genius who said, "Wait, we already have checkboxes and menus and stuff. Why are you making this setting difficult, mister fuckwit?" and that UI battle was won, decisively, forever.

Driving mode can be like that.

Comment Re:Block everyone or the driver? (Score 1) 291

You need to think of this as a UI guideline, not a gun pointed at someone's face. A quasi-standard, not a regulation (even though it might be coming from regulators).

If done correctly, a user will select the best mode, not to save their life, but to maximize their own convenience. People do want to interact with their device when they're driving, and this isn't even a mistake. The problem is that the best UI when you're not driving, is a horrible UI when you are driving, and probably vice-versa.

Depending on how software authors adopt the setting, it might be:

Voice control when driving, otherwise stop listening and making incorrect inferences when I'm not driving.

Display to HUD when driving, display to screen when not.

STFU about trivial nonsense notifications when driving. Bombard me with a bunch of shit that I'm finally capable of handling now, when not driving.

"Blocking" things doesn't necessarily mean it's something you do to the user; it's something you do for the user because they've requested it as a matter of convenience. That's the key to doing this right.

Comment Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score 1) 534

No, you (and a bunch of other people, it seems) just don't understand him. He's taking the responsibility. When he says "I can't" that's just his way of saying that he disagrees strongly that Snowden should be pardoned.

He's a piece of shit, but at least he's admitting it. I thought some people were being stupid, but the more of you who come forward, the more I think you're just not familiar with how he speaks. "I can't" is the way some people express "I won't, because I think I shouldn't."

Comment Re:Scary! (Score 1) 74

How else is the machine meant to know how you want to interact with it?

The "classical" web experience was that the user was always, and easily, aware that there wasn't "the" machine, but two machines: the browser and the server. And you were only interacting with someone else's computer who serves their interests over yours, when you request a page, submit a form, etc.

Web 2.0 is that the browser runs javascript and therefore your own computer is their agent, using your electricity and hardware on their behalf, sometimes in direct conflict with your own interests. That might be pretty freaky to a time traveller from the 1990s or early 21st century. 1995 Guy would be laughing, "There's no way people are going to tolerate that." Decades later, many of us still think of our computers as ours and might not remember (*) that the modern web-browsing experience is very compromising.

(*) Or maybe a more accurate way to put it, is that we're living in denial.

Comment Re:Show us the data (Score 1) 232

And it is the influence that these fake stories have, not the quantity of them, which is important.

No, it's why the stories have influence, which is important. I give zero fucks about anyone's measurements of the influence itself.

You can frame it as a problem with a particular website, or you can frame it as people-enjoy-lying-and-being-lied-to. IMHO the former is worthless way of looking at things, and the latter gets us closer to diagnosis.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson

Working...