Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:And it might be illegal (Score 1) 325

So who regulates common carrier's privacy? Now, it's no one.

While I think it should be part of being a common carrier.

Common carriers are not responsible for what they carry - the mailman is not responsible for the bomb in your package or the damage it does, nor is the ISP responsible for your copyright infringement. Likewise, they should not be allowed to keep records of what's going through their channels. It's one or the other. Inspect and be responsible, or be not responsible and don't inspect/record.

Comment Re:Tipped over does not imply speed (Score 1) 227

Just looked at the photos and found there are three cars involved, one with serious denting.

Most notable is a skid mark leading to the less dented car, as if it's been pushed aside, and the skid mark leading to the front wheel of the Uber car, which makes it look like it slid backwards over the road surface while already on it's side. Looks odd to me.

Comment Re:So backwards... (Score 1) 227

The problem here is that of course you only hear about that one incident where a human driver could have prevented an accident where the robot failed. You do not hear about the 100 incidents where the robot avoided an accident where the human may have not - which makes sense as nothing happened in the other 100 cases. In the same line, you don't hear about the thousands of flights that perform without a hitch every day, but whenever there is an accident with an airplane you hear about it.You probably hear more about air traffic deaths than road traffic deaths in the news over a year. Yet air traffic is much safer than road traffic per distance traveled, in part due to very well trained human operators and a high degree of automation to assist them with it, almost to the degree where all the human has left to do is telling the plane where to go.

It's not about breaking a few eggs to make an omelette. It's about breaking far less eggs to make the same omelette than we used to do.

Comment Re:What videos exactly? (Score 4, Insightful) 301

Or an excuse to pull out of a failing venture?

The few online ads that make it through to me are usually totally irrelevant - except those that come with Google's search results as those are based on my location and current interest, i.e. what I happen to search for. The rest is mostly adblocked to begin with.

Also I have seen relevant ads on other sites - where the site itself sold the ads, to advertisers directly related to the topic at hand (a recycling site posting banner ads of recycling companies).Those were not adblocked, in part for not being part of an ad network so they fell off the radar. Not intrusive and relevant ads, that's totally fine with me.

So it sounds like Internet advertising has to go back to basics. Sites themselves selling ads to advertisers instead of pulling in random ads. Advertisers themselves looking for relevant places to show their ads, instead of having their ads plastered over random sites. At the same time those failing ad networks can stop their invasive tracking and profiling, as it's quite obvious that doesn't work either.

Comment How about the rest of us? (Score 4, Interesting) 98

So let's take MS's claims of a more secure Windows at face value.

This means two things. First of all, the Windows they released to the market is unnecessarily insecure, and MS knows that.

Secondly, why would they only offer this enhanced security to the Chinese, and not to the rest of the world?

All software ought to be as secure as possible. If there are security enhancements available, a vendor ought to roll them out to all their users. Here MS is failing in both: Windows can be (much) more secure than it is, and they're not releasing this improvement to the rest of their users.

That, or MS is lying through their teeth to get into China. That may be possible, but while you can say a lot of bad things about the Chinese government, their people by and large are definitely not stupid so there has to be at least some weight to the claims of MS.

Comment Re:I voted "one" (Score 1) 174

my boss wanted to be able to reach everyone at the drop of a ha>

It's interesting how good old "calling" doesn't seem to do the job any more. Especially in case of your boss needing to know something from you.

If I want an answer now, I call. If someone wants an answer form me now, they have to call. IM may remain ignored (hearing the beep doesn't make me instantly grab for my phone, it may be hours or even a day later that I actually read/respond to the message). IM is asynchronous, which like e-mail I love about it. Most people don't seem to realise that it also means it can be used that way.

Comment Re:why should i care?` (Score 2) 555

That when YouTube nowadays even provides foreign-language subtitles... As in, a robot listens to the audio, translates it into another language, and provides you with subtitles in that language. So a Chinese video can have English subtitles - for free!

Sure the result in my example isn't always the easiest to understand, it's better than nothing, but I've watched English videos with English subtitles where the subs were an almost exact transcription of what I heard them saying. Could be a solution. Add to that a pool of volunteers to check and correct the subs and it's not that big a job any more.

Comment Sounds quite impossible (Score 3, Informative) 72

According to YouTube they have about 1 billion unique users a month. So if all were using YouTube every day, that would mean on average one hour of YouTube watching every single day. Still quite possible, but only if those users all visit YouTube every day, and it's an average, so many people watch much more than that. For me, few days pass without YouTube but normally not more than 5-10 minutes or so, mostly linked from my Facebook news feed, and sometimes tutorials and so. More than an hour in a day is rare.

However, according to this web site, some 30 million users use YouTube every day, and 6 billion hours a month. I don't know where they get their statistics, but the daily total is only 1/5 of the YouTube statistic given above. 30 million a day is indeed nearly 1 billion a month, so that's a sensible number, based on how you count "unique users", of course. Many of those will be repeat users. Anyway, at 30 million visitors a day, each visitor has to watch 33.3 hours of video a day. That's impossible - at least in my world, where a day contains just 24 hours. If that number is also off by a factor of 5, it'd be nearly 7 hours a day, on average. Even with a full zero missing for the daily visitors number, it'd be on average over 3 hours of video per user.

No matter how I try to look at this number, it just doesn't make sense.

Comment Re:Uber may be in trouble but no self driving cars (Score 1) 334

From what I hear from other people it's quite similar in other big cities such as New York, and by now >50% of the world's population lives in cities.

Besides, self-driving taxis should be cheaper than private cars as you share the high cost of the vehicle itself (the driving it part tends to be the cheapest, so the more distance the vehicle does, the cheaper it gets).

Comment Re:Uber may be in trouble but no self driving cars (Score 1) 334

Self driving cars are the future. Once there is self driving cars, the taxis will be as cheap as private cars on per mile basis when averaged over entire year.

Funny you say that. I live in Hong Kong, a place where taxis are cheaper than cars - much cheaper, unless you manage to drive really a lot (like from one end of the territory to the other and back, twice a day), which no normal commuter does. Added bonuses: taxis get you to your destination a lot faster as you don't have to park the darn thing, and you don't have to go back to pick you your car, as you can just take another taxi.

Comment Re:Path to profitibility (Score 1) 334

the owners will cash in/sell out and walk away from Uber with pocket full of cash and a flaming wreck of a company behind them.

In that case these owners will have to be quick, as the moment it becomes apparent that the company is headed for bankruptcy there won't be anyone to sell those shares to - not even gullible "investors" on the stock market as there's just no chance for Uber to go public if it's in that bad a shape.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real wealth can only increase. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Working...