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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission + - The Surveillance State Marches on, Police Drones Are Now Reading License Plates (eff.org) 1

Torodung writes: Police departments across the US are deploying, or planning to deploy, fleets of drones. The latest trend in the practice is to equip them with Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR). These are being sold as first response tools with the added bonus of being able to track anyone and everyone on the way to the scene. According to the EFF, at the head of the marketing effort is Flock Safety, in addition to Motorolla, who have once again raised questions about conflicts between safety and privacy. Given the recent buzz around efforts to develop crime prediction, concerned Americans are becoming more conscious of law enforcement data collection and there is a growing movement to define the policies and procedures regarding its use and retention. As EFF writes:

Communities must demand restrictions on how local police use drones and ALPRs, let alone a dangerous hybrid of the two. Otherwise, we can soon expect that a drone will fly to any call for service and capture sensitive location information about every car in its flight path, capturing more ALPR data to add to the already too large databases of our movements.


Comment Re:Pentagon Papers (Score 1) 264

I think you missed the entire point of his post. Anyone who stays on and signs this agreement is an "access journalist" in his narrative. They don't do real work, they beg for a bowl of gruel, and will do anything to get it and parrot it.

The "hard-driving gumshoe drunks" are the ones who got us the Pentagon Papers in this narrative, not the "access journalists." He may be describing them as reprobates, but he admires them. They do their work. They don't let mama bird digest the information and spit it into their mouths. They go find the worms and show them to everyone in their full rot and glory.

Get it now?

Comment Great, but pointless. What does the IRB say? (Score 1) 38

Also, not whoring for +5 Informative here, but what does the IRB have to say about this.

Because unless American universities are telling researchers they can skip IRB, it doesn't matter what they say. And they are opening themselves up to an immediate and punishing lawsuit if they are allowing human research to skip IRB. Like it's probably on the docket right now.

Of course, such research can crop up in other, less ethical, countries. Oh, who am I kidding? US ethics are shot to hell right now as well.

Comment The AI shell game (Score 1) 38

Sidestep copyright? Check.
Sidestep all other IP law? Check.
Put content designers/lawyers/coders/professionals out of work because screw human dignity for more pointless concentration of capital? Check.

And now...
Sidestep HIPAA and other medical ethics laws? Check.

They cry, "It's AI. It's different. Believe us, we're doing something NEW and UNIQUE."

Bollocks. Training data is simply created data, with the same protections it had when it was created. Creation is new. Actual derivative works are new. Generating results through AI is simply capturing the status of the rear view mirror after putting it through a blender. And sometimes it really does look like it came out of a blender. Moreover, it's generated on the backs of good will contributions to the Internet and a sharing ideal.

That data and those who created it have laws to protect them.

The claims that they're "generating" something "new" are irrelevant, because it's the big lie. Only humans make things that are "new." This is just mooching off the efforts of human beings with a massive power requirement that will drive up consumer power prices to infinity. So... double mooching. And carbon. And everything else that comes with cool toys that have a poor result to cost ratio.

Screw that. No cheap power for this. No driving humans out of satisfying jobs that give their lives meaning. If the message doesn't come across loud and clear, it's time for public demonstrations.

Comment Re:Doesn't matter how...it declined (Score 2) 75

Feels kinda like Apple Newton to me. Maybe we get it right later, after a complete overhaul. Maybe the entire idea is scrapped and we get an iPhone kind of thing.

I'm laughing at LLMs and their champions as much as I laughed at Newton users. It's a toy. If you have disposable cash, go play!

Otherwise, let the experts do their work. There are lots of really good applications for iterative machine learning, such as detecting heart failure from x-rays, but LLM is just a novel use case. It will never do what has been promised. It's Microsoft Bob all over again.

Comment Re:Yeah but how about those cheap eggs? (Score 3, Insightful) 201

I live in dairy farm country. The reason eggs got so expensive was an outbreak of avian flu that caused farmers to slaughter most of their laying stock to protect the rest. It was so catastrophic because they were in cages, weren't healthy to begin with, and were stacked within less than a foot of each other in all directions (unless you got top bunk).

Meanwhile, non-factory farmed eggs are now cheaper. I think I like the price of eggs where they are, now that I don't have to worry about salmonella. Maybe restaurant warnings about undercooked eggs will even disappear.

So, hey Slashdot, I'm sorry for responding to rsilvergun, but people should know why their eggs became so costly. It was that the way they were being produced was also costly, in the quality and health of the product. Enjoy your nutritious, healthy eggs America.

Comment Re:Wild that this is twelve years old... (Score 1) 201

Yeah. It's almost like they know climate change is going to cause an inevitable, unbelievable disaster, have set themselves up for living with $500 cans of Campbell's soup, and are looking at colonizing Mars.

Something is happening here. There might be reason behind political support for this skew. I'm very frightened it's not just limitless greed.

Comment Should I go buy a new TV today to avoid this? (Score 2) 75

I remember when I bought my current TV (in 2016) and I specifically asked for 1080p because I thought there would be a price break. They were actually more expensive.

So I got 4k, and everything is upscaled 1080p anyway. It would have been nice to have native resolution for that. I guess they were cheaper to make? Only recently has 4k content been available for streaming, after buying in 2016. It took 7-9 years. I did not bother to buy any 4k BDs to replace my library, it was throwing money in the fireplace, and streaming has only recently caught up.

And all it is is extra data in my situation. IMO, 4k is not significantly better at 55". I think you need 90" or more for it even to matter. I will never own a TV that size.

I do not want this standard or this feature. I expect backlash will force manufacturers to restore the option to turn it the hell off. But they seem very dug in.

"The soap opera effect" is well known. A not insignificant amount of people don't like it. I'm sure their market data shows this, as TVs are connected devices and they can just look at the user settings. Do they have the data to support deprecation? I doubt it.

So back to the original question. Is Dolby Vision 2 going to be cheaper? Am I going to pay a premium for my own choice? Will sets without Dolby Vision 2 even be available in a few years?

Is it time to buy a new TV so I can get at least 5-7 more years of my own choices about something I own?

Slashdot Top Deals

The computer is to the information industry roughly what the central power station is to the electrical industry. -- Peter Drucker

Working...