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


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

Comment Experts disagree ... (Score 3, Informative) 204

Prof. Orin Kerr, a noted expert on the 4th Amendment and on computer crime law posted his negative reaction to this ruling; he has a longer commentary on this issue here

According to Prof. Kerr this is the third court of appeals to rule that that reading the stripes is "not a search", and that this runs counter to Supreme Court precedent such as Arizona v. Hicks .

Comment It's actually worse than you think (Score 1) 65

On the one hand, the story makes it clear that the camera is always on and viewable by authorities; the officer just has control on whether it is locally overwriting a 30-second buffer or keeping a complete record. So even if the officer "keeps it off" in the bathroom, his supervisors can still snoop on him (no sound is transmitted though).

On the other hand, I agree that there needs to be a rule requiring officers to turn the cameras on -- but I don't think that arrests without the camera on should be invalid. Police have been making valid arrests without cameras for a long time. Rather, when there is a dispute between the police and a member of the public about the interaction (say, did the officer use excessive force? did the suspect make a threatening motion?), if video is unavailble there should be a evidentialry presumption against the government (so by default their story is not believed if they can't produce the video). But this should be rebuttable -- if the camera really failed, for example (say it was damaged during the altercation) then we should be back in the pre-camera world of competing stories.

Comment Actually, it's ALWAYS ON (Score 1) 65

Read the story: the camera is actually continuously recording into a 30-second buffer. When the officer starts recording, the previous 30 seconds are uploaded as well as any ongoing video. This actually has serious privacy implications:

  1. Authorities can remotely access the feed even if the officer hasn't "turned on recording". They can even remotely record the feed independently of the officer. So now whenever you see a police officer the police may be recording you even if the officer says otherwise.
  2. The officer gets no privacy from his supervisors. He can't speak privately with his family members, or just talk to a shopkeeper.

That said, I agree that there should be an evidentiary presumption against the government whenever camera footage is claimed to be unavailable though it should be rebuttable (e.g. in the case of a true malfunction).

Comment You need to be a little more serious (Score 1) 191

There is no doubt that man-made CO2 emissions contribute significantly to the warming seen since the 19th Century, so that most of the warming since 1901 may be due to man-made emissions. Please clarify where in my post I asserted otherwise.

In other words, we both agree that "man-made CO2 emissions would warm things up". But the authors of the paper are relying on the assertion "all warming up is due to man-made CO2 emissions" and that is something else entirely.

The authors of the study claim they can separate the contribution to wildfire rates from "anthropogenic climate change" and "natural climate variability", but then it turns out that what they call "contribution from anthropogenic climate change" sensible people would call "the sum of contribution from anthropogenic climate change and natural variability" and what they call "contribution from natural variability" we would call "short-term fluctuations".

Please do me the courtesy of
1. Explaining why you think all warming since 1901 is due to man-made causes; or
2. Showing that I am misreading the paper's definition of "anthropogenic climate change"; or
3. Explaining why you think the authors are correct in their conclusions despite points 1 and 2.

Comment Semantic games grab headlines (Score 1) 191

As far as I can tell, the paper shows that temperature increases are correlated with more wildfires. Up to this point it's solid science. Then they then define "Anthropogenic climate change" to mean "temperature increases since 1901" and "climate variability" to mean "fluctuations about the trend since 1901" and conclude that the anthropogenic climate change has been the cause of wildfire. Here I call shenanigans.

When most people say "climate variability" (especially in contrast to "anthopogenic climate change") they don't simply refer to short-term fluctuations about the warming trend -- they refer to the part of the warming trend which represents long-term variability/change in the climate independent of human action. This paper doesn't try to separate warming due to human CO2 emissions from warming due to other causes, so it can't tell us which drives the trend in the wildfires.

Comment What's wrong with a McDonald's Free lunch? (Score 2) 164

Can you explain what would be wrong with McDonald's offering free lunches to some people? As long as no-one was coerced to accept these lunches, I'd say this would be a wonderful development.

It may be that these free lunches would be unhealthy, or that they would cause children to get used to eating a lot of McDonald's food. But the people who would be offered these lunches could decide for themselves whether they want the food. There are other ways of getting food too.

The situation here is the same: Facebook offering "free internet" which is primarily good for using Facebook is certainly good for Facebook. But since this offering doesn't prevent other ISPs from making competing offers (either free or for-pay), this offering simply provides people more choices which inherently cannot make them worse off. Are we really so much smarter than Facebook's potential customers that we know for sure that they would prefer no service to Facebook's crippled one?

Comment Isn't this just a name change? (Score 3, Insightful) 116

It's true today that old Nexus phones also don't get upgrades to the most recent Android versions -- only recent ones do. So the real question is: will future generations of Android only target newer versions of Pixel, or will buying a Pixel guarantee some number of Android updates?

Also, apps like Google's Assistant are not core operating system features. The worrisome sign would be not getting improvements to the underlying OS (such as to battery life or graphics performance), or even worse API incompatibilities for app developers.

Comment Panel on top is a feature? (Score 4, Insightful) 47

Features like "new icons", "new Applications Menu", "panel on top" etc requires hiring a programmer, there's something wrong with your desktop environment. These are all trivial configuration options which any user should be able to make for themselves.

Does the fact that my configuration files differ from the default ones mean that I created a new desktop environment?

Comment Re:What happened to personal choice? (Score 1) 104

... there are certain laws that Uber is required to comply with if it wishes to hire workers, whether they be contractors or actual employees ... they should not be able to require private arbitration against drivers who are trying to force Uber to live up to their legal obligations as an employer ... I believe that binding arbitration clauses are decidedly unfair and biased in favor of the company demanding the contract at the expense of the person who is forced to accept that contract

I don't doubt that you believe that the arbitration clause is unfair and biased -- but what you (or I) believe is irrelevant here, since it is the drivers who signed the contract. They evidently didn't believe the clause was unfair or biased -- after all they signed a the contract. We should respect their judgement.

Comment What happened to personal choice? (Score 2) 104

As far as I know, drivers aren't forced (by operation of law or against the law) to drive for Uber. Anyone who drivers for Uber has freely signed the contract, judging that the benefits of driving for Uber outweighed the costs -- including all the obligations imposed by the contract such as the arbitration clause.

If the drivers didn't like the terms of the contract, they had a simple remedy: they could have found a different job. We should respect their choice.

More so if it is us (society at large and the legal system) who think that the drivers made a bad bargain, in that we believe giving up access to the courts isn't worth the money you get by driving for Uber. Then our solution is to speak out and convince the drivers to quit -- it's not to retroactively negate the free choice the drivers made.

Comment News reporting creates cognitive biases (Score 5, Insightful) 243

We have a fundamental problem: our brains tend to confuse the availability and prevalence of information about something with the prevalence of the underlying event.

Here, the news is reporting on every serious Tesla crash, creating the false impression that these are dangerous cars -- we aren't seeing a report on every Corolla crash, say.

I think the same bias plays into current panic over child abductions, which is distorting evaluation of common parenting strategies like letting kids play by themselves: it's not that abductions today are more common in the past, but that today's media is much better equipped to discover and wildly and rapidly disseminate information about them.

Comment Re:Your logic would seem to make sense but for... (Score 2) 238

The EULA that comes with Windows specifically allows customers to return it for a refund

NO. The EULA specifically refers customers to the OEM to get a refund based on the OEM's return/refund policy. That policy could be that they can get a separate refund for Windows but keep the device, but it doesn't have to be. Here Sony's refund policy is that you can return the whole device and get all of your money back.

Slashdot Top Deals

If computers take over (which seems to be their natural tendency), it will serve us right. -- Alistair Cooke