Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:fallacy (Score 1) 173

IIRC, the Farmer's Almanac claims to have a method for making predictions. Could be. AFAIK, their method is proprietary.

I've long suspected their editorial staff assembles in a Pub a few weeks before the printer's deadline and throws darts while the soberist attendee takes notes. But they could have more rigor. Or maybe throwing darts works.

Comment Re: No it can't (Score 1) 173

"If a significant majority of the solutions show one phase instead of the other, it suggests that there is some predictability of the feature (in this case, the NAO) despite the uncertainty and errors from the initial conditions."

There is, however, some chance that the models share some common incorrect assumption. They don't agree because they are correct, but because they are similar to each other. The Literary Digest effect -- sort of.

Or they may simply agree by chance.

Comment Re:Hilarious (Score -1, Troll) 186

Did Microsoft know these things might be used in a football stadium? Did they provide any guidance to the NFl on what sort of connectivity the stadiums must provide? Sounds awfully like yet another instance of the entirely too common practice blaming the user for being unable to use a crappy product.

Comment Re:Yes? (Score 1) 163

"For example a file can be 'owned' by any number of groups in windows. But in POSIX it belongs to one group. In NTFS I can do things like user 1 can change the permissions but not read the file but user 2 can not even look at the file (will not see it in the listing) but can modify the permissions. Totally contrived but possible to do. I am not totally sure you could actually pull that off in a posix sort of system."

Well, yes, you probably could do that. But I've always wondered if the potential for the small subset of us who occasionally make mistakes creating truly baffling problems for the rest of you to solve, was worth the benefit.

Comment Re:SSL etc. = 1 fuckup after another (Score 1) 39

Gee. You don't think that it could be possible that doing computer security even adequately is beyond what people are capable of actually doing? Golly, that might mean that e-commerce is doomed and that all computers are really good for is research and entertainment.

That might put a kink in some folks plans to promote the cloud into a vehicle that will enrich them beyond all belief.

Comment Re: Why is it preposterous? (Score 1) 230

"To my knowledge Google cars have only been driven in near perfect conditions. Ie no blizzards or blowing snow or ice of any kind."

My impression also. I don't have any problem with that. It's an intelligent way to run an R&D program. The only problem is that Google is probably only 15% or so of the way to having a viable autonomous vehicle that you can drop anywhere where there is an accurate digital streetmap in any sort of weather and not have it be a menace to living creatures and inanimate objects. That's OK also as long as management and the public understand that there is a VERY long way to go.

"also the technology on Google cars is way more unaffordable than a Tesla."

Price comes down when your production run is 20 million units?

Comment Re: Why is it preposterous? (Score 1) 230

"So at some point in the future we will see that computers achieve a higher safety level than any sample of human drivers, while remaining imperfect. At this point, it will probably become necessary to ban manual driving on highways, for the protection of the other people on the highway."

Simplistic. For one thing, automatic things like cars is surely going to turn out to be MUCH harder than most anyone expects. Ask folks who have experience applying computers to real world physical processes. The number and variety of things that can and will go wrong is astonishing. Especially once one ventures of the expressway and away from pre-plotted test circuits to a world of kids, pets, horsecarts, wildlife, poorly marked intersections, bicyclists, construction projects, etc, etc, etc. Moreover, even after most of the bugs are ironed out, there are going to be occasional situations -- a road covered with heavy snow (where's the edge?), a fireman or policeman directing traffic up over the sidewalk and up a one-way street in the wrong direction -- that will require human intervention.

(And removing the steering wheel and pedals is almost certainly a bad idea. They'll give us some sort of probably horribly designed joystick or touch screen interface instead?)

I would agree that there may well eventually come a time when overriding the computer -- at least in urban areas -- will be something that can require an explanation after the event. But that time is surely a LONG way in the future.

Comment Re:Why is it preposterous? (Score 1) 230

"The list is intentionally vague because they don't want to limit your designs, but they want you to think about issues that you may not realize are issues"

All well and good. Really.

But California is apparently treating this intentionally vague survey as if it were a concrete list of requirements. Toyota would seem to be correct. That's not a very good idea. Preposterous may not be the right word, but I reckon it'll do. What is Toyota supposed to do to avoid risk of lawsuits or fines or having their test program arbitrarily shut down years and millions of dollars downstream when one of their autonomous vehicles somehow becomes an issue?

Comment Re:Why is it preposterous? (Score 1) 230

Thanks for the link. But that doesn't look like a checklist so much as like a PowerPoint slide. Not that it's evil or stupid, but how does one check off items like "Human Machine Interface: Approaches for communicating information to the driver,
occupant and other road users"?

I should think that there must be more detail somewhere.

Comment Re:Internet 2.0 will be so much better (Score 1) 215

"2.0 can start off as a project to supply secure connectivity to the military, government and critical infrastructure; internal non-public facing usage. Basically take the important hacking targets off today's internet."

As with Gandhi on Western Civilization, that would be a good idea. I think however there might be some implementation problems due to our complete inability to design and write the software to "supply secure connectivity" to anyone or anything connected to any public network.

Slashdot Top Deals

Why won't sharks eat lawyers? Professional courtesy.