Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Will the Google Car Turn Out To Be the Apple Newton of Automobiles?

NicBenjamin Re:How hard is it to recognize a stoplight? (283 comments)

If your point is that lots of people have done autopilots, and none of them have done self-driving cars; then yes autopilots are by definition easier then self-driving cars.

I'm curious: why do you think that's at all relevant to any other part of this thread?

2 days ago
top

Will the Google Car Turn Out To Be the Apple Newton of Automobiles?

NicBenjamin Re:How hard is it to recognize a stoplight? (283 comments)

So it has to know the answers to thousands of physics calculations, and it has to know what to do when the answer is wrong (ie: speed is too low for flaps at 15 degrees), but that doesn't constitute "knowing physics"? That's a mighty fine distinction you're drawing there.

And, like I said, they're completely different engineering problems. With aircraft you're entering a lot of precise mathematical formulas that have to do with the current state of the aircraft. With automatic driving it's all processing visual information.

2 days ago
top

Will the Google Car Turn Out To Be the Apple Newton of Automobiles?

NicBenjamin Re:How hard is it to recognize a stoplight? (283 comments)

My point is they're completely different engineering problems.

An autopilot needs to know physics, and the state of the aircraft. A self-driving car needs to be able to see and understand complex visual information.

You can't compare the two.

2 days ago
top

Will the Google Car Turn Out To Be the Apple Newton of Automobiles?

NicBenjamin Re:How hard is it to recognize a stoplight? (283 comments)

Air travel is very simple in terms of dealing with traffic. The sky is big, so you simply point the direction you want to go and you go.

But there's a whole host of things an aerial autopilot needs to be able to do that GoogleDrive doesn't.

For example, for a plane to fly it has to have an Airspeed above it's stall-speed. Airspeed refers to the speed of the air going over the wings. If your aircraft is x lbs, you need x lbs of air under your wings at all times or you lose lift and instead of going up you're going down. The way you get more air under the wings is go through the air faster. So your computer needs to know how fast you are moving relative to the wind. This is related to the speed the aircraft is going relative to the ground, because if you add 150 MPH to airspeed you've generally added 150 MPH to groundspeed as well, but that really depends on things like the exact geometry of your vector related to the vector of the prevailing winds.

Then there's fuel management. Commercial aircraft generally have fuel tanks in their wings because if you put the tanks in the fuselage there's less room for passengers. They also have fuel tanks bigger them most cars. Seriously. The Dreamliner package your talking about is available on an aircraft with 33k gallon fuel tanks in the small fuel tank model. That's more then 200k pounds of fuel. And if you burn all the fuel in the left fuel tank before you burn any in the right fuel tank your carefully calculated center of gravity moves to some spot on your right wing, which makes things very difficult. In routine flights this isn't an issue, because there's an engine on each wing, but if a goose runs into the right engine the computer has to know to start transferring fuel from the right tank to the left with a crossfeed pump or things get to be problematic.

Ice is another issue. Ice on a wing changes the wings shape, which means the physics of how the wing interacts with the air changes, which in turn means how the pilot uses the wing to stay in the air has to change. The ice also adds weight, which changes both fuel consumption and flight characteristics. Ice is one of the leading causes of passenger plane crashes in the US. And it's something an autopilot has to deal with.

There's a reason it's much harder to become a licensed pilot then a licensed driver.

2 days ago
top

Will the Google Car Turn Out To Be the Apple Newton of Automobiles?

NicBenjamin Re:How hard is it to recognize a stoplight? (283 comments)

That should be easier then identifying a stoplight, because the signs are very standard, are in easily predictable places, and don't look like anything else. You simply program the car to recognize that a sign with this format means this speed limit under these circumstances.

Stoplights can be multiple colors (most are yellow, but some are black), look like quite a few things you drive by every day (ie: a police car with lights on, or a street sign warning there's a light ahead), may be strung across the road or on a poll above the road, etc.

2 days ago
top

Ebola Does Not Require an "Ebola Czar," Nor Calling Up the National Guard

NicBenjamin Re:Politics (383 comments)

Appointing a political hack as "Ebola Czar" to shut the GOP up is the real world version of telling everyone to calm the fuck down and go the fuck home.

That's an interesting strategy.

1. Prove you're incompetent by appointing an unqualified person to an important leadership role during a crisis.

2. ???

3. Stay calm and PROFIT!

Dude, apparently I was quite unclear.

The Czar's job is to do nothing that requires brains.

To beat Ebola you need three things:

1) A strong medical system. Ebola death rates are 10% in countries where every hospital is on the lookout for symptomatic patients, and has the budget to properly treat their symptoms.

2) Enforced quarantine of patients.

3) Some smart guys working on the problem medically. Your vaccine researchers are in this bit..

We have 1) and 2) in the US. The problem in Texas Presbyterian is that nobody took Ebola seriously. African states are fucked by Ebola because they can;t afford 1), and the people they'd need to enforce the quarantine (ie: cops) are always amenable to being bribed.

A political hack is actually the only person who could solve the Texas Presbyterian problem, because he is best-placed to bully any CDC employee of hospital that balks at implementing the strict protocols required for dealing with Ebola. "What! You are seriously thinking of authorizing a potentially infected nurse to go on vacation within the 21-day period! No. And if you ever bother me with such a stupid question again I'll have a press conference declaring that you are a fucking moron, and my good friend the President will be there."

A political hack can't do 3), but unless Congress passes a whole bunch of money to actually research the disease the Ebola Czar couldn't contribute much to that anyway.

2 days ago
top

Ebola Does Not Require an "Ebola Czar," Nor Calling Up the National Guard

NicBenjamin Re:Politics (383 comments)

The President can't unilaterally increase CDC funding. He has extremely broad discretion in moving funds around (the check on his power to cut one program's budget and use it for his pet priorities is not that he can't do that shit; it's that Congress would freak out and zero out said pet priorities budget next year), but he can't just add a bunch of money to the CDC.

The Republican House almost certainly claims that if they'd gotten Romney the CDC would have been adequately funded, but the tend to define "adequate funding" vaguely because every voter will assume their Congressman shares their interpretation of "adequate." But that claim isn't really relevant.

What's relevant is that Obama won; he and the House GOP agreed on the budget after much extreme BS; but now a) everyone wishes they'd added a little juice to the CDC's Ebola numbers and b) nobody actually believes there's a chance in hell that the two parties will agree on a new (higher) CDC budget anytime in the foreseeable future.

3 days ago
top

Ebola Does Not Require an "Ebola Czar," Nor Calling Up the National Guard

NicBenjamin Re:Politics (383 comments)

That why, even as an 'infectious disease response coordinator,' it's a lawyer and politician who got the call.
If they had just stated the truth, that Ebola is hard to spread with proper controls, and can be contained, there would be no panic, there would be little media attention, and there would be no need for a czar. But as you said, there would be no need to concentrate power, so no dice.

Dude,

I see what you're saying, but you're missing something: Nina Pham is pretty. She's 26. She's got a college degree. She reminds everyone who makes decisions in the media of their daughter/girlfriend/best friend/etc. And she's got a very high risk of death because she caught a deadly disease on her job. Then her boss tried to blame her for it by saying she fucked up the protocol.

The media could be convinced to ignore thousands of poor Liberians dying. It could be convinced to treat the missionaries and Doctors airlifted back to the US. That shit is supposed to happen in Africa. But Nina Pham has a really interesting story, great visuals, and a compelling main character.

Appointing a political hack as "Ebola Czar" to shut the GOP up is the real world version of telling everyone to calm the fuck down and go the fuck home.

3 days ago
top

Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"

NicBenjamin Re:These guys are really stretching... (208 comments)

I find a lot of opponents of the security state have extremely high IQs, but virtually no common sense. They're a very smart combination of hopelessly naive, and ridiculously cynical.

For example, this is one case. The NSA does not have to reveal any tactic not used against Ulbricht. This means that that unless you have personally hacked their servers, and know this exact hack was done by them with one of the techniques they have disowned, and that there's no plausible BS explanation; your plan is legal suicide.

Moreover if they've lied to Congress, what's to stop them from lying on the stand? "Well, we hacked this Taliban computer, and it was talking to this IP address in Iceland, so we hacked the IP address, and then we turned your terrorist-aiding drug lord scumbag client over to the FBI; and incidentally we can't give you any more details without risking current operations." Works perfectly.

5 days ago
top

Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"

NicBenjamin Re:These guys are really stretching... (208 comments)

Goddamn lawyers can be ridiculously stupid.

I'm not arguing your point on Constitutional theory right now, because arguments on Constitutional theory are designed to be a waste of everyone's time. I;m arguing legal tactics.

Let's say you;re right. The hack was done by the NSA, and they are the only ones who can explain how the server links to Ulbricht. In that case even saying the words "National Security Agency" within 50 miles of the court room is legal malpractice because it increases the odds the NSA guy who knows this shit cold will be called to testify. And if he does Ulbricht is totally fucked. His lawyer might as well have put the fucking needle in his fucking arm personally. And don't bother claiming that the NSA won't show up. If they show up they get credit for bringing down evil Silk Road empire, justify all their operations, etc.

Let's say you're wrong. The FBI did the hack. Then the Prosecution can prove it, and all Ulbricht's legal team has done is convince the Judge their client must desperate or his lawyers wouldn't be trying something that's obviously going to fucking backfire.

Really, how much do you hate this Ulbricxht guy?

about two weeks ago
top

Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"

NicBenjamin Re:when the president does it (208 comments)

This particular metaphor is stupid because the Founders knew perfectly well slavery was happening, and they knew it would be an issue going forward. So it's analogous to you knowing precisely which criminal was going to seize Granny's purse, and not telling the cops about it.

Not at all. You know perfectly well that muggers steal old ladies purses. The federal government was never intended to have that much control over the states.

I believe you just agreed with me.

My argument is that the Constitution was designed to protect slavery. Your argument is that the Constitution "was never intended to give the Federal government that much control over states." In other words, you just agreed that it was specifically designed to protect slavery from the Federal government.

Thanks.

The Sixth Amendment specifically bans the taking of private property for public use without compensation. And you;re not supposed to be able to get around that by simply granting the property to some third party before you take it, and then hiring it from said third party. But that's precisely how the Emancipation Proclamation operated: the largest source of wealth in the South was taken from it's owners (ie: slaveholders), granted to third paryies (ie: the slaves themselves), and then hired into the Union Army.

You can skip the third parties in your explanation of the emancipation proclamation. It isn't necessary at all. But the sixth amendment does not limit the government's actions against foreign entities especially when at war with them- just US entities.

Apparently neither of us knows the Constitution as well as we thought. Or rather apparently I don't, and you didn't bother to check.

It's the Fifth Amendment we're talking about, and it's last clause is "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Now the south considered themselves to be foreign to the US, Lincoln and congress considered them a belligerent power (an entity of their own right) and states up to this time were actually countries who surrendered a portion of their sovereignty to a central federal government but retained most of it. More importantly, the US north set a requirement of ratifying the 13th amendment to allow the south to "fully rejoin" the union during the reconstruction. Of course the rumor was Johnson used that threat was to force the 13th amendment before congress reconvened because he knew it would be hostile towards the south and limits their ability to rejoin the union.

That's a neat bit of legal reasoning, and it's largely the one Lincoln used. But it ignores the fact there was a fairly strong minority of southern slave-owners who remained loyal. Sherman's bodyguard on his March to the Sea was actually the First Alabama.

The proclamation was enforced with an unconstitutional income tax, and to top it off Lincoln did that thing were he ignored it when Chief Justice Taney granted a writ of habeus corpus.

I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with things. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus which was unconstitutional but supported in other courts. You aren't attempting to claim that because he did something unconstitutional that anything you want to claim is so- is automatically unconstitutional because of it are you?

I'm not the one who said the income tax was Unconstitutional prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment.

I think you are a victim of this new age history in which everything is contorted and construed into some version in which the US is evil. In all your statements about the US constitution, you have to make a leap so large that Evil Kneivel would be scared to jump that far in order to support your assumptions. It's really depressing that you fight so strongly for such incorrect beliefs.

If I've fallen for silly anti-American BS, why did you agree with me in the first sentence of this post?

about two weeks ago
top

Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"

NicBenjamin Re:These guys are really stretching... (208 comments)

Are you arguing about the search that revealed the data, or the government's explanation of how that search happened? Because the latter argument has absolutely nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment. Which means the exclusionary rule does not apply. The remedy for the Court saying the government is excessively deceptive about how it obtained evidence is that the judge orders the government to come clean, not that the evidence gets excluded.

Note the "excessively." If the Courts think that the manner in which the evidence was obtained is irrelevant to the question before them (ie: did this idiot Ulricht pay somebody to kill people), then they will let the government get away with it. Under the American system of government the accused has the right to argue the evidence is complete BS, but he doesn't get to waste the Court's time with years of depositions figuring out precisely how the evidence got into the government's hands. In many cases the Judge will actively aid the government in lying about it's investigative techniques, because you do not actually have a right to know which technique the government used to tap your phone. You just have the right to know your phone was tapped, and this is the recording.

about two weeks ago
top

Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"

NicBenjamin Re:when the president does it (208 comments)

So slavery without rape is ok then?

Your entire premis is incorect to start with but your attempt to push a specific version seems to paint the wrong inferences. I would think beating a person to the point they died after suffering for several days might be a bit worse than rape but neither is protected, encouraged, or supported by the US constitution as your original statements make.

Murder just doesn't have the same emotional impact as rape.

And yes, both were protected because the Constitution is specifically designed so that the Feds can't stop slave-owners from doing either.

Also, defending the confederacy was not about slavery directly until the emancipation proclomation. It was about economic freedom and federalism which the US government was trying to undo. Before lincoln forced the issue to gain support to get reelected, slavery was not a target of thecivil war. Sex with slave was never part of the war nore anyintended cause for remedy after the war.

You seem like a nice guy- just a little misguided and a lot confused about action and inaction and the meaning of such.

You don't know the timeline very well. Seven of the South's 13 seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated. They couldn't be reacting to Lincoln's tyranny. They were anticipating that the North would restrict slavery, and they wanted none of that. All their founding documents repeatedly refer to themselves as the "slaveholding states." So you can make an academic argument that defending the Confederacy was not defending slavery prior to the Proclamation, but in reality the guy defending a Confederation of slave-holding states from the tyranny of a guy who might restrict slavery (but hasn't tried to yet) is defending slavery.

Note that the Proclamation was issued 17n months into a 48 month war. Since every southern soldier was by definition defending slaves from being freedx by the north after that, then almost 2/3 of a Southern officer's war was spent defending slaves from being freed.

about two weeks ago
top

Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"

NicBenjamin Re:These guys are really stretching... (208 comments)

Reread the Constitution.

"Citizen" is an individual title in the early bits of the Constitution. Citizen A is (or is not) eligible for this office, Citizen can sue Citizen C in such-and-such a Court. The closest thing there is to a reference to "Citizens" as holding Constitutional rights is the priveleges and immunities clause, and they pretty much had to use that exact word or the states would have gotten all lawyerly about whether people from Rhode Island had the same legal status as Citizens of Connecticut. In areas where the Founders clearly can't be referring to Icelanders in Reykjavik (ie: the Second Amendment), they refer to "the people." The definite article is the giveaway, because it indicates that the noun "people" is a defined group, and the only such group that the Fourth can be referring to is the people of the US.

As for illegal activities, that would be a great argument if his lawyers mentioned any illegal activities that were actually illegal. They don't say anything about the Fourth, they just go on and on about how hypocritical the government is for hacking people.

about two weeks ago
top

Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"

NicBenjamin Re:These guys are really stretching... (208 comments)

So they're supposed to let an attempted murderer go free because they didn't get paperwork they probably didn't need?

Arguments like that are why everyone says they support Civil Liberties activists like you, and then proceeds to do absolutely nothing you want.

about two weeks ago
top

Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"

NicBenjamin Re:when the president does it (208 comments)

Wow.. you certainly are clueless.

Not addressing does not mean protecting. It means it was ignored. You not stopping a mugger from grabbing granny's purse does not mean you protected the criminal.

Dude, let's not start the ad hominem yet. Your ad hominem are even worse then your metaphors.

This particular metaphor is stupid because the Founders knew perfectly well slavery was happening, and they knew it would be an issue going forward. So it's analogous to you knowing precisely which criminal was going to seize Granny's purse, and not telling the cops about it.

The 3/5th part had absolutely nothing to do with slavery either. It was only a way to limit the tax burden on slave states and prevent excessive representation.

So it only applies to slave states, but it has nothing to do with slavery? I believe you just contradicted yourself.

And yes, the emancipation proclamation was constitutional. The abandond and captured property act of 1863 allowed it. Remember, congress has the ability to grant marks and reprisal but as the south was in insurection, they were considered an invading force too. So slaves at the time being property could very well be confiscated and dispised of in any mannor the commander in chief saw fit. It wasn't until after the civil war and the passage of constitution amendments that slaves could no longer be property. The emancipation proclomation did not free all slaves, it only freed them in the areas of rebellion not held by union forces. This allowed slaves to be caputured by the north (when they left the south) and disposed of (like property) according to the executive powers of the president and as commander in chief.

Just because statutes allow something that does not imply it's Constitutional.

The Sixth Amendment specifically bans the taking of private property for public use without compensation. And you;re not supposed to be able to get around that by simply granting the property to some third party before you take it, and then hiring it from said third party. But that's precisely how the Emancipation Proclamation operated: the largest source of wealth in the South was taken from it's owners (ie: slaveholders), granted to third paryies (ie: the slaves themselves), and then hired into the Union Army.

The proclamation was enforced with an unconstitutional income tax, and to top it off Lincoln did that thing were he ignored it when Chief Justice Taney granted a writ of habeus corpus.

about two weeks ago
top

Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"

NicBenjamin Re:when the president does it (208 comments)

I can't say I actually understand how these idiots think, but I have dealt with them, so I can verify they do exist.

Some of them point out that, statistically speaking, a slave on a high-end plantation was healthier then a poor white man (which neatly ignores the fact that if you're a high-end plantation owner you get rid of anyone who gets sick, which you can do either a variety of ways). At least one has been in the midst of a full "the Constitution is by definition freedom" mental melt-down, which meant he strongly implied that Abe Lincoln was a tyrant for issuing an Emancipation proclamation that violated quite a few articles of the Constitution.

In American culture as a whole slavery gets used as a metaphor for so many relatively trivial things that many people (especially Libertarian people) forget that the American version of slavery was actually a worse then those things. It was so bad that a lot of the things that even things that are clearly not tricvial were probably a lot better then American slavery. For example, would you rather work in a forced labor camp for a maximum of 20 years, and then (if you survived) go back to your family; or would you prefer to live and die a slave, with no idea where your family is because almost every slave got sold once? The death rate at the labor camp has to be incredibly high for slavery to be a better option, and there's a whole lot of debate over the actual death rate in a Gulag.

about two weeks ago
top

Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"

NicBenjamin Re:when the president does it (208 comments)

BTW, the sex part is included because I've actually dealt with people on technology forums who claimed slavery wasn't that bad. They tend to go away after you've pointed out it involved an awful lot of rape, but I am sick of explaining to white people that slavery as practiced right here in these United States was as bad as anything humans did to each-other prior to the 20th century.

I don't want to deal with idiots who think Sherman's March to the Sea was worse then the crime of defending the Confederacy in the first place; and if that makes me sound like a loon I'll tattoo a fucking Canadian dollar to my forehead.

about two weeks ago
top

Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"

NicBenjamin Re:Sure... too bad they DIDN'T BOTHER TO GET ONE! (208 comments)

Now that you mention it...

Today's the first time I've ever gotten modded offtopic. And that post was anti-government because it pointed out that the Constitution was not about universal freedom until the 1860s. I'm not surprised about the flame-bait mods, but off-topic was just weird man.

OTOH, my post pointing out that you really have to stretch to believe any judge is gonna care whether a given search looked like a hack from Weev is still at 5.

about two weeks ago
top

Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"

NicBenjamin Re:These guys are really stretching... (208 comments)

In US law, a document referring to "the people" with a definite article is generally assumed to refer solely to the American people. If the Founders wanted to give rights to innocent Canadians they would have simply said "the right to be secure...," rather then "the right of the people to be secure..." So his nationality is extremely important.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

NicBenjamin hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

NicBenjamin has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?