Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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) 48

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: 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) 301

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

Don't trust any organization that doesn't understand that the fingerprint is the user name not the password.

Fingerprints are not passwords, but they're even worse usernames. Fingerprints come with no uniqueness guarantees and don't consistently identify the same person. Fingerprints are useful authenticators, but you have to understand the security model of biometric authentication, and it is not the same as password authentication. You can't just slot biometrics in as either usernames or passwords. They're different, with different strengths and weaknesses.

Comment Re:One day they'll discover the folly.... (Score 3, Insightful) 84

One day they'll discover the folly of using biometrics for authentication or authorization, but then it will be too late. Let's all tie everything to a password that we can never change right? Great idea! Sigh

Sigh, indeed. You fundamentally misunderstand biometric authentication if you think it is anything like a password, or if you think it matters at all that it can't change. Biometrics do have their share of cons, but not being able to rotate them is definitely not among them.

The security model for password authentication derives its strength (or lack thereof) from the secrecy of the password. Biometrics do not. Your fingerprints are not secrets; you leave them everywhere you go (which is what makes them so useful forensically). From a security perspective the only reasonable way to treat fingerprints or other biometric data is as public information. Assume that the whole world knows your fingerprints, because anyone who really wants to, does.

Because password security is based on secrecy, and because over time those secrets may leak, or be discoverable through time-consuming brute force, password rotation is important. It closes the window of vulnerability if they've leaked, and if you rotate them soon enough that no realistic attacker could have had time to discover them via brute force search (given whatever brute force mitigations are in place), then you maintain the secrecy. Because biometric security is not based on secrecy, rotation helps nothing and is irrelevant.

But if biometric authentication security is not based on secrecy of the biometric, what is it based on? The integrity of the measurement and matching process. Your fingerprint is public information, indeed it's almost certainly conveniently available from the surface of your credit card. So the security of the authentication is precisely equal to the difficulty that an attacker has in presenting your known-fingerprint to the card in a way that it will accept it. If the attacker can splice into the data link between the scanner and matching engine and replay a digital copy, he can authenticate as you. Various techniques, strong ones, can mitigate against that attack.If the attacker can subvert the matching process and get it to report success regardless of input, he can authenticate as you. This is fairly easy to defend against, unless the attacker is very well-equipped. If the attacker can create a fake finger that the scanner will believe is real, and which contains your print image, he can authenticate as you. Various techniques can be used to mitigate against that... but the ones that are deployable in mass-produced consumer devices to be used in essentially unattended operation are pretty weak.

Weak is honestly just fine for this application, though. The fingerprint is just one mitigation on top of many others. It's definitely better than the signature "authentication" currently used in the US. In many ways it's better than PIN authentication, because PINs can be shoulder-surfed. In other ways it's not as good, but overall it's definitely on par.

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 1) 261

Obviously a Christian is not going to refuse to serve sinners. They'd have no customers. But they can refuse to take part in sin.

No one asked them to participate in a wedding... just make a cake. If the law attempted to compel Christian ministers to solemnize gay marriages, that would clearly be a different thing. Whether a Christian wedding photographer could turn down a job to photograph a gay wedding is a tougher call, since the photographer would actually have to be at the ceremony. (Aside: I personally swallowed my objections and photographed my brother in law's wedding to his partner, but I wouldn't criticize someone who made a different choice. As for my brother-in-law and his partner, I disagree with their lifestyle, but like both of them quite a bit.)

why can't white supremacist businesses refuse to serve blacks, or male businesses refuse to serve women?

I don't know. We have essentially eliminated the right to freedom of association. It might not be so bad if we were a more homogenous culture, but now that the policy is "invite the world" I don't know how that works in the long run when you are basically forced to interact with every culture in the world.

You just have to be tolerant. That doesn't require you to participate beyond doing business. And if your business requires more participation than you are comfortable with, then that business isn't for you. I couldn't be a sports photographer, since too many games are on Sundays, for example.

This may well mean that some Christians find that the wedding cake business is not right for them, just as observant Jews don't take jobs or run businesses that require them to work on Saturday, devout Mormons don't work in bars, etc.

Doesn't this kill culture, though? "Sure, you can keep your religion, but you can't actually live according to its teachings, and you can't segregate into a place where you can?"

Meh. That's just reality, and it doesn't do anything to "kill culture". I'm a Mormon, and I work for a company (or at least on a team within a company) where drinking is a huge part of socialization. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the booze-heavy social outings, and it's not unlikely that some of my teammates are a little uncomfortable with the fact that I'm not drinking. They respect my choices, though, and I respect theirs. It works.

An excellent example of accommodation is the long-standing set of adjustments that people who interact with the Amish make, as well as the Amish themselves. There's a dramatically different culture in many ways, and one that has many friction points with the larger community, but it works. Not perfectly, but well enough for everyone.

This all seems like an extremely low entropy arrangement. We have to pump a massive amount of energy into coercing every combination of race, religion, culture, gender into equivalent cogs in society.

This is a gross mischaracterization. There's no "massive amount of energy" involved, and no implication that everyone must be equivalent cogs. All that's required is a little accommodation and a willingness to allow people to be different.

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 1) 261

So we agree the issue is not "tolerance" but "forced compliance," right?

No, "the issue" - that is the topic of this thread several posts up - is still tolerance.

You tried to derail the topic by talking about wedding cakes. I pointed out that the wedding cake thing isn't about tolerance, it's about some people who think they could disobey the law and get away with it, and were proven wrong.

Meta-monkey is wrong about this one, but your reasoning is lame. "Because it's the law!" isn't an answer. The law exists for a reason and that reason is to require a certain minimal level of tolerance. Your answer just begs the question. Is the law a result of progressives who gained power forcing compliance with their ideas? Well, yes, it is. Is it a good thing? Also yes, IMO, but that's a more subtle, complicated and infinitely more interesting question.

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 1) 261

Except the left's definition of "tolerance" is more like "forced acceptance of." Not stopping gays from doing gay stuff is tolerant. Forcing Christians to bake gay wedding cakes is forced acceptance.

That's a tough one given the obvious intersection with freedom of religion, but there are really good reasons that we refuse to allow public accommodations (basically, any business that is open to the public) to discriminate. If you allow Christians businesses to refuse to serve gays, why can't white supremacist businesses refuse to serve blacks, or male businesses refuse to serve women? I'm Christian and believe that homosexuality is a sin so I empathize, but it seems to me that the peace treaty clearly must include such cases.

I'd also point out that your characterization of the issue is slanted. It's not forcing some random Christian to bake a gay wedding cake, it's requiring a wedding cake business to serve all paying customers, even when the business owners happen to be Christian and even when the customers happen to be gay. This may well mean that some Christians find that the wedding cake business is not right for them, just as observant Jews don't take jobs or run businesses that require them to work on Saturday, devout Mormons don't work in bars, etc.

Comment Re:Xwayland (Score 1) 224

You run an X server as a Wayland client: https://wayland.freedesktop.or...

That's fine until people start writing apps directly to Wayland, rather than as X clients. Or, rather, until toolkit support for X begins to bit rot due to lack of attention, and eventually gets removed. Hopefully enough *nix OSes will continue using X to keep that from happening, but...

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 0) 261

I don't see the right trying to actually shutdown or prevent talks by left leaning speakers at town halls or colleges especially.

Yes, both are opposed to the other, however, I don't see the folks on the right trying to actively suppress the liberal views being presented in public. They may disagree with them, but they don't riot outside the hall where the speaker is supposed to talk and actively try to intimidate the leftist audience or prevent the speech even being given.

As a pragmatic libertarian who frequents both left-leaning and right-leaning forums, I frequently end up as the target of both sides and there is a distinct difference in the way they approach "debate". One which actually makes a lot of sense if you look at their underlying motives.

The difference I see is that while both are fully convinced of the rightness of their cause, and the more extreme people on both sides think that the other side is actively evil, those on the left see themselves as crusaders while those on the right see themselves as defenders. The right sees the left as a group of out of touch elitists trying to change what has been working and the left sees the right as a group of bigots trying to maintain their position of unfair power.

As crusaders, the left believes that the ends justify the means, and is therefore willing to be harsh, condescending, abusive or even violent, because their cause is the bettering of the world. It's Just, damnit! And that means it's okay to break some eggs... especially when those eggs are the dominant power oppressing the little man.

As defenders of the status quo (or the status quo ante), the right is unwilling to engage in tactics that are destructive of the status quo. That doesn't make them one whit less vicious, but it results in tactics that focus more on calling their opponents stupid and evil, and exploiting their extensive sub-rosa power bases to throw up all sorts of obstacles. This allows them to feel morally superior about their less destructive approach, but it's really not due to any moral difference, just a different motivation.

Having drawn a large target on my back for arrows from both sides, I'll now get pincushioned by both, of course. But, hey, at least I won't get called a Google shill. Probably.

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 1) 261

However, for the most part, the party/ideology from the left in the US that promotes itself as the party of diversity and tolerance, is ONLY tolerant of viewpoints they hold and not only will put you down for what you think

Ah, the old intolerance of intolerance argument. The paradox of tolerance is that if society is tolerant of intolerance, you ultimately allow that intolerance to destroy tolerance in that society. Ultimately tolerance is useless without the right to not tolerate the intolerant. (you might need more than two hands to count the double negatives there)

Yonatan Zunger has an interesting take on this question. He argues that the apparent paradox stems from a misunderstanding of why tolerance is good. If you view tolerance as a moral precept, meaning that tolerance is a characteristic of good/moral people, then it's difficult to explain why this should not include tolerance of intolerance. Zunger suggests instead that we view tolerance as a mutual non-aggression pact, not a moral imperative.

If you are tolerant, you should expect tolerance in return. If you are intolerant, you should expect intolerance.

Put that way, the paradox disappears and with it any obligation to tolerate intolerance... and it also makes abundantly clear the value of being tolerant. Unless, of course you're in such a powerful social position that you can simply squash any intolerance of yourself. When we think about people in that position, then we begin to see the moral aspect, which is that those in power should not abuse it.

Slashdot Top Deals

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"