I don't understand why the source code itself is the distinction between something being verifiable or non-verifiable. It seems the results of the machine under standard testing would.
If we stood your biocube up to the similar tests that any real device would go though (being presented with samples with a known alcohol percentage) your system would get some right, some wrong and you could then say, of a sample size X, the device accurately determined the BAC of Y samples with a accuracy window of Z.
This data (as well as the device itself - generally) would be available for use during any case which this was used in. For example, if (for the sake of argument) the initial tests came out with 100% accuracy - the defense would have the device available to conduct another set of tests (And another, and another) until they could show evidence that the measuring device itself was faulty - or at least inconsistent. In an ideal system, this would lead to reasonable doubt that the test worked, and the defense would win the case.
I don't see why the real device wouldn't be put up to the same test regardless of what drives the device (hardware, software, vanilla pudding, whatever) to determine if it is providing data in an accurate enough way to be used as evidence. If the device is known to have inconsistencies like the summary states, it would seem like testing would be able to show this (caused by software or not) - hence reasonable doubt of any readings. It's up to us (as people who would be on a jury) to determine whether Y correct out of X samples is accurate enough to convict someone in our society.
I'm all for the company to release the software - but I'm not 100% convinced that a software bug being shown in court would cause a device like this to fail on the above criteria.
Lets say (for the sake of argument) that the device consists of: a physical sensor of some sort a way to adjust the input of the sensor (since there's always variance on those sorts of things), software which reads this adjusted input and displays the result (perhaps averaging samples over time, etc, etc).
A normal production model would go through the testing described above, have the input adjusted until the results displayed by the software met standard criteria, then the adjustment would be locked and the unit would ship.
Even in the case where the software could have a significant bug, like always adding.15 to every read, the system as a whole would be adjusted to compensate for this.
And while the bug in this case would definitely be used in court - I have the feeling it would be more of the "get an guilty person free" rather than the "showing true reasonable doubt of the system" type of use - since the device as a whole would be accurate and precise, whether that bug existed or not.
why do I have a feeling that most of the infomation in this huge amount consists of records like:
old lady #416236 12-1-2001 8:50 played a nickel slot - lost
old lady #416236 12-1-2001 8:51 played a nichel slot - lost
I mean, a major problem with many data mining systems is the amount of garbage that is thrown in with the "useful" info...
I mean _anyone_ (well anyone with a huge wallet) could strap a bunch of hard drives together and write random 1's and 0's and say they have XX terabytes of data...
I wonder how much _infomation_ is in these databases.....
the scene... a bunch of engineering students sitting at their computers
engineer1:what do you mean our server is down? engineer2:umm..its something called slashdot, it seemed to kill our server! engineer1:thats not very nice, we should do something about that evil website engineer2:yeah, but what? all look toward prototype railgun
all engineers together: hmmmm.....
Ok let me start with the beginning statement
"entry level c++"
Everything that I can see being taught in this class are inherently portable (control structures, variables, basic classes, etc etc)
Anything used here _should_ be just fine to develop one place, swap the code over, and recompile (i don't forsee any problems)
higher level classes (such as ones that concentrate on user interfaces, operating systems, etc.. would have a problem, however, at that stage in the game
(approx junior/senior level) a major lesson to be learned is the ability to have any operating system/development tools/programming language dumped on you work your way through it(IMHO)..
feel free to flame me if I'm being really short sighted on this matter
Time to crumble the evil empire...
on
Hacker Crackdown?
·
· Score: 1
hang with me on this one
any hacking done with the tool is the responsibility of the writer of the piece of software..
windows is based upon ms-dos...
Billy Gates wrote (takes credit for?) ms-dos..
looks like we didn't need to wait for the anti-trust trials to go through after all!:-)
Ok, theoretically we find an asteroid that would collide with earth
ok..what do we do now? I guess I mean to ask who would shoot the damn thing down (if possible!) the US can't even develop defenses against missiles under the START treaty...how can we build something that has to be even bigger.. and if not us...who exactly would handle this? I can just see it now, bidding wars over who gets to launch the world saving missile "and nike announced a 2 mil donation if the rocket has a swoosh on it..."
for all the hard core gamers out there... does this sort of technology really help make better games? On one hand I really am impressed with the impressive graphics that are apparent in the majority of today's games, and perhaps this will allow game designers to think less about the technology (even "bad" code can hit 60fps with a smoking graphics card) and work on the game... On the other hand, I think that technology shouldn't be the focus of a good game (aka who cares if the orange is triple pass bump mapped at 140 fps if the game isn't fun to play) while games like diablo (640x480 resolution) still get dusted off and played.... any thoughts?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why the source code itself is the distinction between something being verifiable or non-verifiable. It seems the results of the machine under standard testing would.
If we stood your biocube up to the similar tests that any real device would go though (being presented with samples with a known alcohol percentage) your system would get some right, some wrong and you could then say, of a sample size X, the device accurately determined the BAC of Y samples with a accuracy window of Z.
This data (as well as the device itself - generally) would be available for use during any case which this was used in. For example, if (for the sake of argument) the initial tests came out with 100% accuracy - the defense would have the device available to conduct another set of tests (And another, and another) until they could show evidence that the measuring device itself was faulty - or at least inconsistent. In an ideal system, this would lead to reasonable doubt that the test worked, and the defense would win the case.
I don't see why the real device wouldn't be put up to the same test regardless of what drives the device (hardware, software, vanilla pudding, whatever) to determine if it is providing data in an accurate enough way to be used as evidence. If the device is known to have inconsistencies like the summary states, it would seem like testing would be able to show this (caused by software or not) - hence reasonable doubt of any readings. It's up to us (as people who would be on a jury) to determine whether Y correct out of X samples is accurate enough to convict someone in our society.
I'm all for the company to release the software - but I'm not 100% convinced that a software bug being shown in court would cause a device like this to fail on the above criteria.
Lets say (for the sake of argument) that the device consists of:
a physical sensor of some sort
a way to adjust the input of the sensor (since there's always variance on those sorts of things),
software which reads this adjusted input and displays the result (perhaps averaging samples over time, etc, etc).
A normal production model would go through the testing described above, have the input adjusted until the results displayed by the software met standard criteria, then the adjustment would be locked and the unit would ship.
Even in the case where the software could have a significant bug, like always adding .15 to every read, the system as a whole would be adjusted to compensate for this.
And while the bug in this case would definitely be used in court - I have the feeling it would be more of the "get an guilty person free" rather than the "showing true reasonable doubt of the system" type of use - since the device as a whole would be accurate and precise, whether that bug existed or not.
why do I have a feeling that most of the infomation in this huge amount consists of records like:
old lady #416236 12-1-2001 8:50 played a nickel slot - lost
old lady #416236 12-1-2001 8:51 played a nichel slot - lost
I mean, a major problem with many data mining systems is the amount of garbage that is thrown in with the "useful" info...
I mean _anyone_ (well anyone with a huge wallet) could strap a bunch of hard drives together and write random 1's and 0's and say they have XX terabytes of data...
I wonder how much _infomation_ is in these databases.....
Great, now I have to worry when the guy driving in front of me realizes that his post on /. just got modded down...
wonderful
I just love the "ask your site" entry....
/. - Thats causes bubba.. they ain't there!
I put in www.slashdot.org with the title "news for nerds" and It came up with forrest gump
I can only imagine slashdot playing forrest and kiro5shin playing bubba whenever slashdot posts a link...
kiro5 - I can't feel my webpages...
*chuckle*
the scene... a bunch of engineering students sitting at their computers
engineer1:what do you mean our server is down?
engineer2:umm..its something called slashdot, it seemed to kill our server!
engineer1:thats not very nice, we should do something about that evil website
engineer2:yeah, but what?
all look toward prototype railgun
all engineers together: hmmmm.....
Ok let me start with the beginning statement
"entry level c++"
Everything that I can see being taught in this class are inherently portable (control structures, variables, basic classes, etc etc)
Anything used here _should_ be just fine to develop one place, swap the code over, and recompile (i don't forsee any problems)
higher level classes (such as ones that concentrate on user interfaces, operating systems, etc.. would have a problem, however, at that stage in the game
(approx junior/senior level) a major lesson to be learned is the ability to have any operating system/development tools/programming language dumped on you work your way through it(IMHO)..
feel free to flame me if I'm being really short sighted on this matter
hang with me on this one :-)
any hacking done with the tool is the responsibility of the writer of the piece of software..
windows is based upon ms-dos...
Billy Gates wrote (takes credit for?) ms-dos..
looks like we didn't need to wait for the anti-trust trials to go through after all!
Ok, theoretically we find an asteroid that would collide with earth
ok..what do we do now? I guess I mean to ask who would shoot the damn thing down (if possible!)
the US can't even develop defenses against missiles under the START treaty...how can we build something that has to be even bigger..
and if not us...who exactly would handle this?
I can just see it now, bidding wars over who gets to launch the world saving missile
"and nike announced a 2 mil donation if the rocket has a swoosh on it..."
for all the hard core gamers out there... does this sort of technology really help make better games?
On one hand I really am impressed with the impressive graphics that are apparent in the majority of today's games, and perhaps this will allow game designers to think less about the technology (even "bad" code can hit 60fps with a smoking graphics card) and work on the game...
On the other hand, I think that technology shouldn't be the focus of a good game (aka who cares if the orange is triple pass bump mapped at 140 fps if the game isn't fun to play) while games like diablo (640x480 resolution) still get dusted off and played.... any thoughts?