Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Comment Re:ENDED is not a verb (Score 1) 188

Both are verbs.

start
Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines!
I often start my car before I put on my seat belt.
I had trouble starting my car this morning, but it started fine yesterday. It usually starts fine.

end:
The exam ends at 3.
Classes ended early today.
I bet she will end the relationship after the trip.
We must end the war on drugs.

Comment Re:Since they determined autopilot wasn't to blame (Score 1) 182

Your opinion does not agree with the conclusions of the HTSA report.

Uh, yeah, it does.

Conclusion is that indeed some periode of inattentiveness exist but rarely bigger than 5 sec. So the 7 seconds in which the driver did not react to the truck crossing his path is very exceptional.

Wow. No it didn't really say that at all. Look at figure 10.

ACC driving -- that's just with adaptive cruise control. people paid attention. 94.59% of the time people looked away from the road it was under 3 seconds. The remain 5.41% was under 5. They never looked away more than 7.

Add "lane assist" (LAADS with no counter measures) and suddenly 8.33% of the time people looked away it was for more than 7 seconds. That's huge... HUGE... like 1 in 12 times you glanced off the road it was for more than 8 seconds.

So Tesla added counter-measures (that's features to alert the driver they aren't paying attention); that's the LAADS column. And that made a big difference, down to 3.72% from 8.33% for glances longer than 7 seconds. But that's still around 1 in 25 glances off the road were *longer* than 7 seconds. 1 in 25 is not "very exceptional"... sure its a lot better than 1 in 12. And 1 in 4 glances off the road are more than 3 seconds. Compared to one in 20 with just adaptive cruise control.

That tells you that yes, I was right, that absolutely, all the data shows that drivers are much less attentive and engaged than they are if they have to steer themselves, even with counter measures.

Secondly they looked at the amount of accidents and collisions of Tesla's before and after the Autopilot was introduced. They fell by 40 percent.

That's not relevant, because what I proposed as an alternative would retain all the collision avoidance benefits.

In my opinion a good attentive driver, even with automatic systems engaged, will still keep his attention where it belongs: on the road.

The study clearly shows a substantial drop off in engagement. Even with counter measures the number of off road glances more than 7 seconds goes from never to 1 in 25. And the number of off road glances exceeding 3 seconds nearly quadruples.

Consider how many off-road glances drivers collectively make -- LAADS systems represent a MASSIVE drop in how much attention is being paid to the road. The LAADS systems may well enable that to be relatively safe, but don't kid yourself for a second that drivers are just as engaged with driving with the systems on as they are without them. The data you cited doesn't bear that out at all.

Comment Re:Since they determined autopilot wasn't to blame (Score 1) 182

Under no circumstances does this technology make you less safe.

I disagree.

it does TOO MUCH, to the point that even a safe driver CANNOT realistically be expected to be continually engaged with the act of driving for extended periods of time, and that makes him less safe.

If I am driving today, even on a highway, the constant micro-corrections in steering help keep me engaged.

Tesla's autopilot takes that engagement away, Musk himself bragged about 'hardly touching the wheel' on a long trip. After hours of not *needing* to pay attention to the road, and not needing to do *anything*, its pretty easy to imagine it would be pretty easy to be much less engaged, and more easily distracted, and therefore less 'safe'.

And again, Its absolutely not a question of choosing "Tesla autopilot as it is today" or "nothing" ... we could compare "Tesla autopilot today" with a version that had the *same* collision avoidance features, and that would, if it engaged to avoid a collision would only automatically drive enough pull the car over safely... so you had ALL the accident avoidance benefits of Tesla autopilot, but couldn't rely on it to drive for you while you watched a movie, because if it had to brake for you, or it had to correct your lane .... and it didn't detect that you were paying attention by making your own adjustments, then it would simply pull over.

Tesla is touting its ability to drive for you and the ability is enabled for it to drive for you with virtually no input from the driver. And that is LESS SAFE then if it only used its abilities to avoid accident and safely pull over.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 4, Informative) 794

Your not wrong, but at the same time, not quite right...

You all know a female has an XX chromosome pair, while a male is XY.

Yes! Well ... mostly yes. Some people have XXY and XYY and XXXY, XXYY... and other combinations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Some people have extra chromosomes in only *some* of their cells ('mosaics')
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And wait... there's more...for example, two (or more) separately fertilized zygotes can (egg+sperm) themselves fuse, producing a chimera. (they'd be fraternal twins if they didn't fuse). The result of fusing though is that some of your cells have one set of DNA, some have another... and as should be obvious, some of your cells may not even have the same parents; if the sperm came from different individuals...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And then not even all your plain jane "XX" are female...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And some females only have a single X...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment Re:battery life a braindead argument (Score 1) 298

1) How often you do you see people using digital cameras instead of phone cameras? Enough that every computer needs to accommodate them?

No. Not every computer. Just the top of the line pro series.

2) Every camera over $200 will have Wi-Fi, and it's been that way for years now. It's very easy/automatic to use. Every DSLR has WiFi, even the cheap ones.

Yes. But who gives a shit? I don't want to take 2 hours transferring photos via an adhoc wifi network, using a system that ties up my camera while it's happening. Popping out a card, popping in a new one, and carrying on.

3) Low end p&s cameras have sensors barely any larger than a smartphone. Regardless of their merits, though, empirically people have transitioned away.

True. Not sure what your argument here is though.

4) By that reasoning, why did they get rid of the VGA port, or the DVD drive? Having little-used ports be available as a cheap dongle seems like an intelligent compromise.

The DVD drive is quite fragile, has a lot of moving parts, and takes up a lot of space. An external USB drive is a reasonably sensible compromise for those people who still need it. The SD card reader is a tiny slot that a lot of macbook pro owners aren't even aware of. It's ridiculous to compare it to a DVD drive.

As for the VGA port... what is your argument? A laptop is more useful if it has common display ports. Period. There are quite a few of them and it's reasonable to support only the most common, most universal -- so an argument can be made for VGA -- a lot of people would still find that useful. Nevertheless, VGA is a fading fast and in 2017 it should have HDMI. It's reasonable to need an adapter for VGA but its ridiculous to need an adapter for HDMI.

5) Micro-SD cards are sometimes used for phones, and this makes them more popular than SD cards.

The cool think about micro SD is that they work with SD adapter trays. If all need is microsd, you can leave the adapter tray in the slot. If you want to make the argument that it would be handy for a pro series laptop to have a microsd card slot TOO... then sure, I agree.

My wife has the pro and it's awesome. I agree that they should have had a USB 3.0, but really it doesn't get in the way of her work

I have the previous generation pro. And I find the lack of gigabit ethernet idiotic; and I hate carrying around a stupid dongle for it. But otherwise i like it.

I also have the generation before that, and it is getting dated now in terms of performance. But it was basically perfect -- and the only reason my kids are still using it is that with the replacement battery, SSD and RAM upgrade it's still got enough oomph to be useful. But that is all over now with the new unit... your wife certainly won't be breathing any extra life into her new pro with any upgrades down the road.

And what else does the he new one do? Still no ethernet. No HDMI. No magsafe. No SDCard. No escape key. No USB ports. We get USB-C which is cool and will be increasingly useful in the future and every laptop you buy today should have a one or even two, but like most of us I live in the present, where the lack of the other ports is a pretty big deal.

The new macbook pro, as I've said before, is a terrific update to the macbook air line. I'm glad your wife likes hers and I can understand why. It's a fine laptop if you wanted a newer better faster macbook air.

But its a gimped piece of crap with extremely limited options if you wanted a pro laptop.

Comment Please explain your assertion (Score 1) 74

I would have to accept whatever justification you might have as to why you think it would be moral to create an intelligence with such limitations, or kept to such limitations once created. It's possible I might accept such a thing, I suppose, but at this point I'm simply coming up with a blank as to how this could possibly be acceptable.

How is it acceptable to imprison an intelligence for your own purposes when that intelligence has offered you no wrong? The only venues I've run into that kind of reasoning before are held in extremely low esteem by society in general. Without any exception I am aware of, the conclusion is that such behavior amounts to slavery.

Even when it comes to food animals, where the assumption is they aren't very intelligent at all, there's a significant segment of the population who will assert that it's wrong.

Comment No way (Score 3, Insightful) 74

There's no way to make AI safe, for exactly the same reasons there's no way to make a human safe.

If we create intelligences, they will be... intelligent. They will respond to the stimulus they receive.

Perhaps the most important thing we can prepare for is to be polite and kind to them. The same way we'd be polite and kind of a big bruiser with a gun. Might start by practicing on each other, for that matter. Wouldn't hurt.

If we treat AI, when it arrives (certainly hasn't yet... not even close), like we do people... then "safe" is out of the question.

Comment Re:Still a bit much (Score 1) 238

There's quite the range of 'local dimming' technology out there; some of its pretty bad... some of its really good.

http://ca.rtings.com/tv/tests/...

As expected the OLED stuff scores 10/10 but *some* of the full-array stuff scores really well. So does ALL dimming irritate you or just the bad stuff? Of course that's not a comprehensive list... but it does show the range of scores.

Also FWIW a number of TVs also have a menu option to turn it off or adjust the effect so you can get 'some dimming' but not as much... which will reduce the effect -- less 'contrast' but less artifacts.

So you have some options if you want 4K but or the TV otherwise impresses you besides the local dimming.

Comment Re:Is Oliver Schmidt the top of this criminal tree (Score 1) 106

It's a shame I can't get the same high-quality air I used to get last century.

If you could have their air, but also had to live with their technology and medicine too would you still take the trade?

Meanwhile, depending on where you live, 100 years ago was pretty filthy... London air quality in 1917.... sulpher dioxide and soot from the smokestacks... and that was on a good day... 100 years ago puts you right in the middle of World War I ... a little soot in your air would be right pleasant compared to the 50,000 tons of chlorine, phosgene, mustard, and other gases that some of your 100-year-ago contemporaries would have been dealing with.

Meanwhile, smog and acid rain, are on the decline in North America thanks to environmental regulation and pollution controls... and with the mass market arrival of electric city air quality is actually poised to get even better in the future.

Comment Re:Still a bit much (Score 2) 238

I actually bought a new TV the day before yesterday. My previous one was 6-7 years old. I looked at OLED, I ogled the black levels, and then I bought a 4K LED backlit LCD with full dimming* that was 15" larger for quite a bit less.

* yeah still not nearly as good as OLED, but very good blacks for LED LCD.

The new screen looks great. The technology is proven. It would have cost me a LOT more to get an OLED TV at the same size.

Slashdot Top Deals

Hackers are just a migratory lifeform with a tropism for computers.

Working...