Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Infinitesimally precise (Score 1) 134

What you're referring to has nothing to do with the location of the vehicle itself (which is what this article is about), but the location of external objects relative to the vehicle.

The most important thing a self-driving vehicle accurately needs to track about itself is its current speed. Next would be the current state of the steering wheel, accelerator, and brakes (and perhaps whether the driver is trying to take over to avoid an accident). I suppose there are a number of other things you wouldn't normally think about for a moving vehicle such as whether any doors are currently open (it sounds stupid, but it's possible). There are plenty of other (mostly) fixed constant values such as vehicle dimensions, weight, braking power, turning radius, etc. that it needs to know to determine the best way to avoid obstacles/accidents. I'm sure I haven't thought of all of them, but none of those that I can think of are location-based.

Comment Re:Infinitesimally precise (Score 3, Insightful) 134

Actually, self-driving cars don't need any location information at all to avoid accidents.

It's not like a GPS can tell them if a light they're approaching is red or green, if there's a car in front of them, or if that hypothetical car is currently slamming on its brakes. It can give them an idea of where to turn, but it can't tell them if there's a pedestrian, a car, a wall, a lake, a big gaping sinkhole in the road, a flooded section, or something like that in the spot where it wants them to turn.

Comment Re:He really hates Google (Score 1) 246

Actually, I think the more honest answer would be: We asked them.

"We" is collective, of course. It doesn't necessarily mean you or me, but someone asked them. Google is constantly under pressure from various groups/individuals to remove/filter/hide things, and it actually costs Google far more to go out of their way to filter them than it does for it to simply show you what its crawlers found.

Some of these are completely harmless, like the auto-complete filtering. If you want to type "penis", you'll still get what you typed. But if a young child types the word "pen" and auto-complete fills in "penis" and the page fills with pictures of naked men and ads for enhancements, you can bet there will be a lot of people asking Google to avoid that word in auto-complete. To be honest, Google may have seen that one coming ahead of time and taken steps to avoid it in the very first auto-complete implementation. And is the poster too lazy to finish typing Hillary's name? Or is it too much trouble to click on links and read articles, so instead he thinks people will decide who is crooked based on what auto-complete shows them? He's grasping at straws there.

When it comes to removing pictures of military bases and wealthy homes, you can bet that the government and lawyers of wealthy homeowners asked Google to remove the pics.

Even in the case of YouTube videos being banned, it is still based on user requests. Perhaps the employees are biased on which ones they act on, or perhaps it is just simply that the complaints coming from liberals are much louder (or perhaps much more frequent). Though IMO rather than banning them, they should just flag both sides as political flame-bait and let users decide whether they want to turn those on or off.

Comment Re:Ad blocking FTW (Score 1) 57

I feel about 100% certain that Microsoft did in fact choose target sites that favored Edge. Opera was probably a little less "professional" in that way.

Although to be honest, I don't think any ad blocker could be as inefficient as the ads themselves. Every site I manage to visit with my cell phone that has a bunch of ads brings the browser to its knees, which drains the battery faster. Even on my desktop, I find that Chrome performs fine until I hit a site with ads that seem designed to go out of their way to be as annoying as possible (which usually means plenty of poorly-written JavaScript, often combined with audio/video).

Comment Re:Just wow ... (Score 3, Insightful) 62

It's possible the developer was clueless, but it's also possible something more like this happened:

1) Developer writes rapid prototype in JavaScript intending to convert it to C.
2) PHB sees it and says "Wow, that's great! No time to perfect it! We gotta get this feature out the door now!"
3) Developer says "...but..."
4) PHB says: "No buts, we'll fix it in the next release." (unless something else important comes up, which has a statistical probability of nearly 100%)

I've seen both happen plenty of times in software development.

Comment Re:So name them already (Score 1) 265

How is it passing the buck to the company who "fixed it" if that company's servers are causing the problem in the first place? From what the poster described, it didn't sound like the constant testing of specific ports (for specific services like HTTP, HTTPS, RDP, etc.) that go on all the time. Those hits are generally sprrad out and treated like background noise by a router and don't get reported. This sounds more like a wider range of ports on someone's home IP address being hit repeatedly over a long period of time from one or more servers at a single company, which is much more targeted (and unusual).

If it's a direct hacking attempt, it is a moronic one. I imagine it is either a mistake (e.g. mis-configured penetration testing software) or perhaps a compromised server at that company. In either case, it is something the company should want to fix.

Comment Re:So name them already (Score 2) 265

I see your side, but I see the other as well. Since he reported it to the company once and the company "fixed it" temporarily, it doesn't sound like a false positive. If he posts the company's web site on Slashdot and that company's web site happens to get slashdotted (especially if they have a forum or mailbox where visitors can post complaints/issues), it might wake them up to the fact that someone in their IT/dev department is doing something they really should not be (whether it was ordered by the company's leaders or not).

Comment Re:We have a lot of foolish people... (Score 2) 735

Looked up:
"a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result"

A public statement can be considered an event, the statement was contrary to what was intended/expected, and it was amusing as a result. I suppose you could argue about the word "deliberately", but often what is considered irony is unintentional, causing the person making the statement to become the butt of the joke instead of the person making a joke.

Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 166

As someone who has worked as a developer for a few small games on both platforms (this was back in the Android 2.0 - 3.0 days), I can say that hands-down iOS was MUCH quicker to develop a "finished" product that works well on all devices. The OS version matters only a tiny bit. What matters a lot more is manufacturer, screen size, resolution, aspect ratio, etc. Some specific Android devices had issues initializing OpenGL ES (causing it to work great on 9 phone models but crash on the 10th), different models supported different OpenGL extensions, and so on. Even creating a nice background image for a 2D game on Android was way more of a pain than it should've been. Refer to the ridiculous aspect ratio of the early Motorola Droids, which was wider than any other cell phone at the time, and ended up with blank space on either edge of your background (or stretched it into something ugly) if you didn't add special logic or assets just to deal with Motorola because they wanted to be "special". That wasn't the only problem caused by having too many manufacturers wanting to make their phone seem "better" by being different, just one of many.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whom the gods would destroy, they first teach BASIC.