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

How Do You Give a Ticket To a Driverless Car?

Shihar Re:Not as silly as it sounds (337 comments)

This isn't as hard as you make it out to be.

If your driverless car hits another car, your respective insurance companies pay for it unless it can be shown that you showed negligence. There is no liability for anyone. It goes from a case of assigning blame to treating it like getting cancer. Your medical insurance doesn't assign blame. It just pays out. You pay enough so that the insurance company always makes a buck. End of story. If a car company showed gross negligence, maybe someone could take legal action against them, but if occasionally shit happens and that is life, the simple and easy solution is just to have insurance be no-fault unless someone did something stupid, like modify the software. This is how most insurance works. Car insurance just starts to act like normal insurance.

In the case of your car killing someone, again, it is simple. Your insurance just acts like normal insurance. Your insurance company just pays out unless it can be shown that the pedestrian did something stupid and is own their own (like dive in front of the car). Again, if the software really bit the bullet, maybe you could try and hit the car company, but for the most part your insurance simply pays out and that is the end of the story.

The real change would be in insurance price. Your insurance price will probably swing based upon how good the car is at avoiding accidents. A car with a slow stopping speed and 5 year old software is going to be more expensive to insure than an agile car that can stop quickly and has the latest software. It is a boring numbers games that actuaries will have a field day with. You will probably have lower insurance rates regardless because the cost to insure for insurance companies will bottom out. You will have fewer accidents and blow less money on trying to determine liability. It will mean that they can score the same profit doing a whole lot less work, It is a win for everyone.

People are over thinking this trying to apply a world of liability to a world where there is little to none. If you break the speed limit, the cops might pull you over, but it will be just to check that your software and sensors are not screwed up, and maybe a warning to get your car checked out, not to give you a ticket.

about 2 years ago
top

Vast Bulk of BitCoins Are Hoarded, Not Used

Shihar Re:Gridlocked with No Way to Prime the Pump (438 comments)

...and get drugs. Seriously. BitCoins have value. So long as they work as an exchange medium that is more or less untraceable, they have very real value. You can decry it as glorified monopoly money, but so long as you can covert from dollars to BitCoin and back to dollars with dollars in roughly equal to dollars out, BitCoin has value.

I wouldn't invest my life savings into BitCoin, but so long as "and get drugs" works, it has value.

about 2 years ago
top

FTC Releases Google Privacy Audit, Blacks Out the Details

Shihar Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again... (57 comments)

Um, money well bet? When you use the Google voice features it asks if it can build a database based on your voice so that it responds better to you. You can say no and it will just default to a standard attempt at voice match. Say yes, and it will start learning... like what most voice software does.

about 2 years ago
top

Gottfrid Svartholm Warg Arrested In Cambodia

Shihar Re:Failed to Appear (138 comments)

The charge is stupid, but you kind of have to be a dumb ass to run from 1 year of prison in Sweden. Sweden is not exactly known for their harsh prisons, and a year in jail sounds a lot better than being forever on the run.

more than 2 years ago
top

Gottfrid Svartholm Warg Arrested In Cambodia

Shihar Re:Sweden in general (138 comments)

Julian Assange has not been charged of anything by any authority of any kind. He is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual misconduct

I can only assume that you are from Britain or the US (or some nation with a similar system of law) if you think this matters. Sweden's legal system is different. If he was on the run from the US instead of Sweden with the exact same charges and they held the same legal weight, he would have an arrest warrant out and have been charged. The US, Britain, and other similar legal systems charge someone formally and then try and capture them in most cases. The suspect is rarely present when charged. The Swedish system captures them and then charges them. Successfully running when they initiate the "capture and question" part of the Swedish system doesn't mean a get out of jail free card. It is of the same severity and holds similar legal weight to being charged in the US or Britain and having arrest warrant issued. This isn't the voluntary phase where you can talk to the police or not. He is in the "we are going to hold you and question you" phase, and there is a legal warrant to detain him which he has run from, which is why Britain is willing to extradite him.

Whether or not the charges are legitimate and is this a secret plot by the US to snag him, I'll let other people argue. I'm happy Wikileaks exists regardless of whether or not Assange is a douche bag.

more than 2 years ago
top

MIT Creates Car Co-Pilot That Only Interferes If You're About To Crash

Shihar Re:This is probably a better start (238 comments)

I don't think that there would be much to lose if computers took over which shit was going down. When shit hits the fan you have a second or two to respond. Your response is going to be pure instinct. It is probably going to be wrong.

I live in the north east USA. It snows a lot. People should be good at handling a skidding emergency, yet I watched a 30 car pile up a few years ago because a dozen drivers did the exact same thing when they hit ice on the highway and realize that the brakes were doing literally nothing. I watched a dozen cars blink their brake lights a few times, realize it wasn't working, realize that they were going to hit the cars that were stopped or already crashing in front of them, and then proceed to do literally the stupidest thing you can do. They braked and turned on ice. This is a surefire way to put your car into a spin, and spin they did. I got through a massive accident because I was one of the few people that could get a hold of myself long enough to realize that as much as I wanted to both stop and turn, only turning was going to work, and I gently steered my way through the accident without touching the breaks.

A computer would have handled it vastly better than most people. A computer would have realize that breaking was stupid, and then tried to coordinate gently moving out of the way. At worst, the computer would at least realize that if all else fails, a straight rear end impact as vastly safer than going into a spin.

People can't be trusted. As soon as computers can do it better (which shouldn't be all that hard), we should surrender control and let the computers do it. If that means that every time you hit ice and break the computer steals control, so be it.

more than 2 years ago
top

MIT Creates Car Co-Pilot That Only Interferes If You're About To Crash

Shihar Re:2001 (238 comments)

Oh! I have one! You are driving peacefully down the road when a driver blows through a red light, crashes into your car, and kills your entire family and leaves you a paralyzed from the neck down. It turns out that the drive that plowed into was drunk. He decided to drive home anyways.

I'm going to leave it to you to decide which is more likely, terrorist assaulting your car and only your awesome human driver skillz saving your life, or random drunk crashes and kills you.

more than 2 years ago
top

The Ineffectiveness of TSA Body Scanners - Now With Surveillance Camera Footage

Shihar Re:Too lazy to do more research (219 comments)

I always liked to call them the radioactive pr0n scanner. You can opt out of going through them and instead get some freedom fondles.

more than 2 years ago
top

Honoring Alan Turing, "Father of Computer Science"

Shihar Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him (230 comments)

AC Wrote:

I actually consider the fact having just looked at your Facebook profile (http://www.facebook.com/theodore.seeber from your blog: http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.co.uk/ [blogspot.co.uk]) on your homepage link that you are morbidly obese a reason why you shouldn't breed and hopefully never will.

Well, that and the fact you're dumb enough to think god exists which is born of the same childlike logic that makes kids think Santa is real.

At least you'll die early with all that excess weight, that's something the world can be thankful of.

Might I also note that thankfully, it's also incredibly hard to breed when you're too fat to even find your own dick?

Holy shit! AC is right. You are one fat fuck. Not only are you a fat fuck, but you also also appear to believe in magic. Don't breed dude. Not only are you physically unhealthy, but your belief in magical forces and spirits pretty well disqualifies you as a person who should be breeding.

Fat fuck wrote:

It is incredibly hard to breed when you don't know the difference between a plug and a socket.

Again, you appear to be a fucking moron. It is pretty easy for a gay to breed. You just need a womb. There is no shortage. Granted, it costs a little more than when two hillbillies fuck in the woods. You also seem to be under the delusion that people who have gay sex are confused about what naughty bits they posses. They aren't. They fully recognize that the sex they are having isn't for the purpose of reproduction and purely for fun. Most sex humans have isn't for reproduction. Well, in your case it might be. If you sucker some woman into having a relationship with you, I imagine she would only be letting your lard ass roll onto her if she was looking for a baby. You don't look like you have it all going in the "sweet loving" category, if you catch my drift.

In fact, I think this explains a lot about your bitterness towards gays. It must gal you to realize that there are people out there having sex purely for recreation. You, yourself, unable to sucker a woman into letting you enjoy regular recreational sex, have turned your cognitive dissidents to 11 and rationalize that sex is evil unless it is for procreation. You also appear to have picked up a belief in a magical sky man who gives a shit about you.

Here is my advice. Drop the belief in the magic sky man and accept that the world is as it appears to be and that there is no magic, holy or otherwise in it. Go to the gym and eat better. Do this for a year or two. It will feel good after a time. I promise. Work on being a less bigoted and shitty human so that you can attract people who enjoy life. You see, you are such a miserable fuck to be around that only people who believe in a magical god can stand to be around you, and only then because of their shared delusional belief in magic. What you need to do is work on being a less miserable fuck so that you can be around other more fun and interesting people. If you work on improving the health of your body and being less of a shit head, you will be able to hang out with people who have fun and are merry. Through such friends you might be able to find a lady who is okay with your now improved body and personality. With said lady, you can do the rest of the world a favor and get laid... laid just for fun. Once laid, the last vestiges of your miserable fat fuck personality will vanish. People around you will be happier and you will be happier. Win win.

That, or you can cling to your belief in a magic sky man and run around foaming at the mouth about how the gays are going to eat your children. Honestly, it doesn't really matter to me because I am going to go enjoy some recreational sex.

more than 2 years ago
top

Google and Facebook Top Biggest Web Tracker List

Shihar Re:Food for thought (103 comments)

Eh. Who cares? Google trying to make really good ads for me rates pretty damn low on my list of concerns. Hell, if they actually manage to get me to click on a link, it means they found something that I actually care about. I call that a win. I will happily take a good book recommendation that I actually would like to know about over a dancing baby trying to sell me a better mortgage.

Targeted advertising just isn't scary. It is good. Google having that kind of information doesn't scare me.

Where Google and the like become scary is when our own government steps in. I don't care if Google tries to sell me stuff that I want. That is a service. I do care if the government can track down my various aliases and I run into trouble with the law because I vocally declare drug laws and the TSA dumb. Google isn't the problem, it is when my government forces Google to divulge information on me that we have a problem.

Facebook is little worse than Google. Their targeted advertising is perfectly fine, but their constantly shifting privacy settings that desperately want to share private drunk pictures with my boss is fucking annoying.

more than 2 years ago
top

Honoring Alan Turing, "Father of Computer Science"

Shihar Re:Fuck Whom (230 comments)

Cool story bro.

more than 2 years ago
top

Honoring Alan Turing, "Father of Computer Science"

Shihar Re:Fuck the British government (230 comments)

You don't have to blame the national entity. I mean shit, if you did, the Germans, Japanese, and Americans would be on the permanent shit list. That said, it is your duty to learn about what a dick your nation has been, and to not just merrily celebrate your glorious historical triumphs in a vacuum. A little humility in the face of your cultures past failings is healthy and helps prevent you from making those same mistakes.

more than 2 years ago
top

Honoring Alan Turing, "Father of Computer Science"

Shihar Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him (230 comments)

So I can then I assume from your comment that you will hold fast to your beliefs that only the intelligent should survive and will yourself refuse to breed? Shitty bigots like you are the reason why Turing died. If Turing had been living in Boston today, he would have merrily continued with his work, gotten married to someone he loved, and if it tickled his fancy, have had a kid. The kid could have been from his very own sperm if that is so fucking important to you. It is kind of hard to breed when if it leaks out that your partner has the wrong naughty bits, the government castrates you. I suppose you think the Jews that got dumped into gas chambers in Auschwitz are also assholes for not breeding?

The bigoted British government of the 50s robbed the world of Turing passing down a legacy, not his sexual orientation.

more than 2 years ago
top

Dark Days Ahead For Facebook and Google?

Shihar Re:Dallas Mavericks Owner (215 comments)

Most of which are noble experiments but money sinks, and don't last very long. Of the ones that are successful, virtually all are just a means of selling more ads.

Except for that... you know... that whole Android thing. You can drop a couple million here and there on dead end projects if one occasionally turns around and suddenly becomes the largest OS on the fast growing type of device (mobile). Google sucked the air out of the room for anyone doing maps, e-mail, web browsing, and now mobile devices. That isn't to suggest that there are not worthy competitors in all fields, but Google is a god damn gorilla in each and makes its competitors fight tooth and nail.

Google dumps money into pie in the sky R&D. Most of the time it fails miserably as that sort of things tends to do, but when it wins, it WINS. Google is clearly thinking ahead. They saw mobile coming and got their shit together in time to claim the lions share of the market, something Microsoft and Nokia utterly failed to do despite being in a vastly superior positions to do it.

Google's history in R&D is a jerk off fantasy for anyone who does that sort of work. Mobile is an excellent example because Google wasn't just doing mobile. Google was also doing ChromeOS. Why ChromeOS? Google was doing ChromeOS because it covered its bases, didn't truly know what the "next" thing was, and so had plates spinning for everything. If netbooks had ended up being the next big thing, Google would have been ready. It turned out that the answer was mobile, and ChromeOS faded out. That doesn't make ChromeOS a failure. A failure would have to have picked netbooks over mobile and watched as mobile won. A failure would have been to pick mobile and see netbooks win. Victory is picking both, having one of those investments be a minor waste and having the other investment consume market share like it was their job (which I suppose it is).

I am sure that Google is going to slip from their throne and fall someday when technology takes one hard right turn or another. It is inevitable. Everyone fades or fails eventually. That said, I wouldn't be one to bet against Google any time soon. I for one know I would be doing a lot more browsing on the 'tubes if someone offered me up an autonomous car and then used a pile of dark fiber to line the roads with data connections...

about 2 years ago
top

Rutger's Student Dharun Ravi Sentenced To 30-Day Jail Time

Shihar Re:I was surprised he was convicted on hate charge (683 comments)

Hate crimes make a lot of sense. It modifies an existing crime. Why the modification? The reason is because you did extra harm to other people. If I beat a relative, for the most part, it doesn't effect the people besides the victim and the person who knew the victim. It might make my neighbor uneasy if he knows about it, but it probably doesn't go much further than that. For a normal crime, I get the normal punishment.

Now, lets say I go beat the shit out of someone in my neighborhood who is black because I hate black people. I victimized the victim and effect his friends and family, as in a normal crime. However, I also just scared the shit out of everyone in the community who is black because they now are worried that there are psychopaths targeting them specifically because they are black.

Motivation matters in law. Killing someone on accident while driving recklessly, is different from killing someone due to road rage, is different for waiting for someone at a specific time to leave work so I can run them down. It makes sense and we do it all the time. Hate crimes are no different. We modify the sentence because your motives were different. Hurting someone with the intent to terrorize them is a different motivation from hurting someone with the intent to terrorize an entire group of people and sow distrust and fear in the community.

Finally, it should be pointed out that hate crimes don't "treat people differently". If a gay guy is beating up straight kids because he hates straight people, they too could be charged with hate crimes. Hate crimes just pick out classifications, they don't specify that it needs to be a minority. It just so happens that most of the time nasty hate groups beating the shit out of people tend to be straight white dudes, hence they eat the majority of hate crime charges

more than 2 years ago
top

Neal Stephenson Takes Blame For Innovation Failure

Shihar Re:I doubt that's true (448 comments)

Technology is layered. The spiffy stuff we can do with with software hasn't come about because of a few orders of magnitude increase in the efficiency of software. It has come about because the hardware has been driving vastly more power into the device. Smart phones were not waiting for inventive programmers. They were waiting for low power and fast chips. Inventive software maybe shaves a year or two off the time when it is useful to a consumer.

I'm not trashing software. Software is important. However, a lot of software is just stuff floating on the surface of a massive tech pyramid that supports it. It gets a lot of attention because it is what we see. The question you have to ask is, do you want your best and brightest putting paint onto the highest level of this tech pyramid, or do you want them advancing the foundation. Good software gets you prettier apps that run a little faster. Good hardware gets you orders of magnitude faster processors that run at a fraction of the power, that are a fraction of the size, and cheaper than the generation that came before. Your spiffy Google glasses or Google contacts lenses are going to exist because someone made a break through in a semi-conducting lab, not because Google wrote some spiffy software.

The Internet has brought us a lot of wonderful and socially useful things. The world is a vastly better place for having it. That said, and this was Neal's point, we have funneled a huge portion of our creative energy into it, to the point that much of the rest of science has gotten the bum shoulder. It is important to have a pile of people running around making the tech useful for the masses, there is only so much you can do if the rate of innovation on all the bits that support that front slow down.

more than 2 years ago
top

Neal Stephenson Takes Blame For Innovation Failure

Shihar Re:I doubt that's true (448 comments)

I was actually at his talk. He didn't discount the tech boom. His point is that the tech boom wasn't "big" science. If anything, it might have sucked some of the air out of the room for science. He was arguing that the Intertubes landed out our feet, everyone was like "wow, WTF is this and how can we use!?" and stopped doing a lot of other things. That is almost certainly true. We diverted a huge number of people who might otherwise have been "hard" scientist into working in and around the 'tubes. He was talking more about striving for grand science, not just what we call "tech".

I have friends smart technical friends writing apps for cell phones. My most technically brilliant friends work for Google (an ad company) and Facebook (also an ad company). These people are near Savants with how scary smart they are, and their efforts are their brilliance is being funneled into figuring out ways to make you click on ads. For better or for worse, we have turned a huge portion of our most technical minds to working on shit that, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't mean a whole a lot.

Now, how much of that is a lack of optimism for the future and how much of it is that Google makes a fuck-ton of money? Eh, I think the money probably has more to do with it. That said, I wouldn't totally discount the subtle effect of sci-fi. I know sci-fi influenced me into going into engineering. I wanted carbon nanotube space elevators. The (delusional) dream of working on something like that is the only thing that lured me away from programming and into engineering. If not for sci-fi, there is a non-trivial chance that my path would have sent me down the road of making apps for people's cell phones instead of making the chips that go inside of them.

more than 2 years ago
top

Sergey Brin Says Facebook, Apple and Gov't Biggest Threats To Internet Freedom

Shihar Re:No shit sherlock (500 comments)

When people say Apple is evil it just tells me they don't own any Apple products and know nothing of Apple's history.

You are a moron. Of course when someone says that Apple is evil they don't own any of their fucking products. Why would you own products from a company that sucks? If I don't want my balls chained to Apple, then of course I don't own a bunch of Apple crap.

They're usually wannabe nerds that can barely use anything other than Windows and usually they think their awesome at Linux because they've managed to install the flavor of the month baby distro. They think hacking is taking a device that was expressly made for being hacked and following step by step directions.

Riiight.They are too stupid to use Apple stuff. You realize that when someone claims ignorance and stupidity in technology that the default response is to shove some Apple products into their face, right? It isn't technical nature of Apple's locked down products that makes them what you give grandma. Apple stuff is literally built so that a moron can use them. They ask themselves, "If I was a moron, how would this work?" and then make it that way. It isn't a bad design philosophy if you are shooting for mass market appeal, but it is about as far from nerd nirvana as you can get.

More to the point, your dull anti-nerd scree is the normal nonsense that slathering Apple fanatics love to babble on about. I am really sorry that you feel like an inadequate nerd, or that you think that being a nerd is a bad thing. My condolences on your insecurities.

Probably they have absolutely no sense of taste either - they think their Dell Inspiron One is comparable to an iMac.

If by "taste" you mean dull conformity to a single aesthetic shared by like half the nation, then yes, people who don't get Apple crap have no "taste". Of course, I suppose you think that someone who buys local coffee instead of that burnt Starbucks crap also has no "taste".

more than 2 years ago
top

Indian Man Charged With Blasphemy For Exposing "Miracle"

Shihar Re:Blashphemy??? (796 comments)

Dude if you think that worshiping elephant gods is fucked up, you should come to America and see some really crazy shit. In my country people worship some sort of zombie god/king. Their religious icon of choice is an ancient Roman execution and torture device. A bunch of sub-sects of this religion practice ritualized cannibalism and blood drinking. They think that their zombie god is going to come back some day and kill everyone, and they think that this is a good thing because it lets them get to their promised land or something equally crazy. I swear I am not making this shit up. These people are craaaazy here. I'll happily take some elephant worshipers over these psycho zombie worshiping cannibals.

more than 2 years ago
top

Hybrid Car Owners Not Likely To Buy Another Hybrid

Shihar Re:They can (998 comments)

The plug in hybrids might make that equation a little sweeter. Pulling from the grid in some states could result in serious saving. Perhaps even more importantly, because they just use their gas engine as a generator, the car is actually a lot simpler. You rip out a huge pile of components when your engine isn't driving the wheels. The engine just runs at one well tuned speed, and electric motors are far far more resilient and long lived than their gas counterparts. The "real"savings might simply be in having a car that very rarely fails and the lower gas costs are just gravy.

I would consider a plug in under two conditions. First, it needs better infrastructure. I park my car on the street and at work. At least one of those places needs a plug for me to consider a plug in. Second, the "this shit don't break" theory is the sound, but I personally want to see a generation or two of cars prove it out. Plug ins are not there yet for someone like me, but given a generation or two and I think it will be far far more common.

more than 2 years ago

Submissions

Shihar hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

Shihar has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?