I predict idiots putting their phones in the passenger seat, and leaning over in addition to their previous phone use. Unless this is a device that can be unplugged, in which case they'll unplug it and then use their phone.
The technological solution to this problem is self-driving cars.
Anyone who thinks Vulcans are logical is an idiot.
Oh, and anyone who's studied Game Theory knows that emotional responses are extremely logical in many circumstances. For example, if you can prove you are committed to self-sacrifice for nothing more than to damage your opponent who has angered you, you limit what is logical for an opponent to do to you. Thus, people cannot safely screw you whenever you would earn no material profit in harming them, because you will "illogically" get angry and punch them in the face.
Orwellian society has come to us not because of technology, but because of people. Everyone from the President, NSA, Congress, Courts, Law Enforcement, and General Public is guilty of encouraging or simply allowing the erosion of our liberties. Because we need it to fight the terrorists, druggies, and especially child molesters. Think of the children!
Even if we manage to get government espionage under control, what technology is allowing is for private companies to collect massive amounts of data on us. And every idiot who installs apps on their phone that require "spy on you" permissions is guilty of helping them do so and even financing them. I can't see this stopping until someone makes a sufficiently shocking news story about violations of people's privacy. Maybe someone will make an app that forwards a copy of your browsing history to your mother and significant other, and a message to you saying "this is a small fraction of what every company knows about you".
Sure, there's differences with the MOOC community. The biggest three in my opinion are that
1) The courses are free with no obligation. Because of this, people can and will sign up for trivial things like looking at part of a single lecture.
2) The environment is different. Because the dedicated school environment is replaced with the same environment where most people play their computer games, and there is no one to crack the whip, and there is no dedicated timeslot in people's schedules, people who intended to take a full course may have trouble motivating themselves to complete it.
3) The completion certificate is worthless. No one gives a crap if you completed a MOOC course or not, and if they did it would be too easy to fake/cheat. And the person taking the course has a pretty good idea of what they know, so to them it's just a pat on the back. Besides this being mildly discouraging in general, it means there is very little reason to do the often boring assignments that would be required to complete the course.
Basically, all the worst problems of a MOOC could be fixed by having a "school" where you went in on a schedule and had someone watching over you. This would provide the motivation and environment some people need to succeed, and because it wouldn't be free it would weed out the people who didn't intend to carry through and provide the motivation of a sunk cost to continue. It would also help the certificate to be worth something, because there is someone to verify that you didn't cheat and that it was, in fact, you who took the class. At this point you're probably ready to complain that doing it this way exactly eliminates every advantage a MOOC was supposed to have. However, this sort of thing would be cheaper than a regular school and would also help legitimize MOOC even for people who do it on their own.
If lip reading software reaches the courts, suddenly all video recording becomes wiretapping. The courts might resolve that by allowing audio recording wherever they allow video recording. Or by forbidding video recording wherever they forbid audio recording. Or maybe they will finally do something about that ancient "wiretapping" deal they've been twisting into the modern world.
Tesla's customers are largely environmentalists, who will be that much more eager to buy due to the factory being greener. For comparison, someone buying a can of pasta sauce won't care about the specifics of the canning factory, so price is the only factor.
The other reason is specialization: most factories do one thing and do it well, and trade for whatever else. While it's entirely possibly for a company to generate its own power, grow the food its employees will eat, make its own tools, etc. that all adds unnecessary complexity and gets in the way of specialization. Instead, do the thing you're good at and buy the rest. In the case of power, I could see more and more companies adding solar panels, since so much of their cost is installation. But for now going full renewable is only for marketing purposes.
Lots of pirates are too lazy to scan their own books, but how long until every book a library has scanned ends up on the internet? And the more so because people in other countries have more trouble getting to a EU library so this will be the only way they can access the scanned books. And I'm sorry but scanned, searchable, non-DRMed books accessible to everyone are more valuable than the status quo, so once again pirates produce the higher quality goods at a cheaper price and greater convenience. It's long overdue to update our IP laws to the modern world.
Remorse is possible for a bad decision made in the heat of the moment. This man, on the other hand, was deliberate and meticulous in his abuse of several people that lasted over a *decade*.
People are routinely genuinely sorry for things they've spent decades doing (or more often than not, not doing). Do you think it's ever a good idea to waste a *decade* of your life plotting stupid revenge? There's so many better things you could do in 10 years, even if he didn't get caught it was a stupid waste of time.
I'm sure the editors are shocked and amazed that "Google chose the test route; that it set limits on the road and weather conditions that the vehicle could encounter; and that its engineers had to take control of the car twice during the drive."
"Massive study finds that they should have hired more intelligent researchers"
Who cares if they found genes correlated to intelligence but they don't directly affect the nervous system? The body is interconnected in so many ways that everything affects intelligence.
Also, academic achievement also tests for willingness to put up with bull and do boring homework, or an interest in certain subjects. To be fair though, academic achievement is probably more important than intelligence, at least for some things. For example many colleges want applicants to take the Student Aptitude Test, yet I've never heard of one wanting an IQ test.
Other studies have found that about 50% of the variation in intelligence is due to genetics. This study only looked at it from the perspective that maybe a few genes contribute a lot. It seems that the answer is it is due to a large number of genes each with a tiny effect. This is hardly surprising but it was a worthwhile test.
Is the submitter of the article a developer looking for ideas?
Well, in my opinion I'd like an app that can tell me the time and date, has an alarm, and can make the battery last for 5 years. Is there an app for that?
No different to someone saying to the device user, "Get off the network." The device is welcome to ignore the request.
And, following a patch, probably will.
Well, it could also be seen as hacking (of the device) or impersonation (of the wireless hub). If the device properly identifies itself as having nothing to do with the network when sending the disconnect request, then it would be comparable to merely a request. If not, then I see no reason we should encourage the elimination of a feature of our networks by eliminating the disconnect packet from all network code, just so a stupid jammer can work for a month while the code is eliminated.
In the case of a drone, I suspect the owner of the jammer will be considered responsible for any damage caused by booting the drone from the network, if any.
And yes, I realize that this is not a device that saturates the EM frequencies to jam a signal. But it has the same purpose and function of a jammer, of terminating the target's communications. And I think it is worse than a jammer, because it might end up deleting a feature of the internet.
Why, do I first need to conduct an experiment to see how well scientific consensus correlates with accurate prediction? Or would that still not be science because authoritarianism?
Nope, science is about prediction. Anything that makes predictions must by necessity be falsifiable, the things that make the best predictions are the easiest to falsify should it be wrong. If something is false yet makes good predictions, it will be accepted until such time as circumstances are found where it makes wrong predictions, and then it will be kept even so until such time as something makes better predictions.
Case in point: Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics has been falsified, but remains in use because it makes accurate predictions with simple calculations, except for in certain extreme circumstances. This is how you judge if something was good science or bad: not if the "explanation" it has for something was right or wrong, but if it made accurate predictions. And if it made accurate predictions it will forever be at least approximately accurate.
If the evidence is strong, then present it. If the evidence is not strong, then your consensus will do nothing.
The easiest to understand evidence in this case is, in fact, the consensus. A reasonable person would conclude that there is a very small chance of people who dedicated their lives to discovering, sharing, and verifying truth, to be in some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth. And if you don't trust them, then you shouldn't trust their data either, nor their calculations.
Go gather it yourself, and make your own calculations. Only after you have done that would the data you're asking for have any value for you. For bonus points, see if you can buy the weather station data with re-distribution rights, so that you can share it afterwards.
Most non-scientists are not in a position to evaluate the claims of any given scientist.
I'm pretty sure that was the argument the Church had against releasing full, translated copies of its data, a.k.a. the contents of the Christian Bible.
This argument doesn't pass the sniff test. It is the job of a "scientist" to present claim and data that supports said claim in such a way that it may be consumed by anyone and still stand on its own, only then is there "consensus."
It's the job of the scientist to make predictions about the real world and test them. Sometimes you can double-check their work, other times to do it all yourself would require millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man-hours.
If you've got a problem with weather stations that make records and then sell them without re-distribution rights, take it up with the weather stations or the guys who wrote copyright law, or fund your own weather stations and give the data away. But ask yourself this: do you also bemoan the fact that psychologists and medical researchers don't tell you the names and personal data of the subjects in their study? Sometimes a scientist won't give you the data, and this is not unique to climatologists. After all, you can always gather your own data.
And even if they could give you the data, what are you going to do with it? Do you have a supercomputer and the know-how to debug a million lines of code simulation software? I'm sorry, but there are some things that you can't just check in a couple minutes, you'd have to dedicate your life to it and even then depend on your coworkers.
But, at the least you can see for yourself that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Rent IR goggles, and look at a heat source through a flask of CO2 and a flask of nitrogen.
The reason scientific consensus got a bad name is simple: On occasion, the scientific consensus costs powerful people tons of money. Whether it be cigarettes and cancer, or global warming, or the environmental and health costs of pollution, on occasion the scientific consensus will cost some powerful people a ton of money, and make a ton of other people feel bad about what they do.
The FUD is getting so bad that people don't even know what science is anymore: the making and testing of predictions about reality. It's not only that simple, but scientists will gleefully attack the tiniest error in another scientist's work, they'll double-check on each others' work, and have even developed methods to test a prediction when one can't trust oneself to be unbiased (double blind study). If you can't trust a scientist, who the hell does any better?
both sides cops and criminals as long as they're killing each other and not random bi-standards then i'm fine with it
...said the criminal who has committed multiple counts of felonies and smaller crimes. If you want to keep that attitude you might want to look into reducing the absurdly large number of overly broad laws. And then design a gun that can identify and refuse to shoot at law-abiding citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
I predict idiots putting their phones in the passenger seat, and leaning over in addition to their previous phone use. Unless this is a device that can be unplugged, in which case they'll unplug it and then use their phone.
The technological solution to this problem is self-driving cars.
Anyone who thinks Vulcans are logical is an idiot.
Oh, and anyone who's studied Game Theory knows that emotional responses are extremely logical in many circumstances. For example, if you can prove you are committed to self-sacrifice for nothing more than to damage your opponent who has angered you, you limit what is logical for an opponent to do to you. Thus, people cannot safely screw you whenever you would earn no material profit in harming them, because you will "illogically" get angry and punch them in the face.
Orwellian society has come to us not because of technology, but because of people. Everyone from the President, NSA, Congress, Courts, Law Enforcement, and General Public is guilty of encouraging or simply allowing the erosion of our liberties. Because we need it to fight the terrorists, druggies, and especially child molesters. Think of the children!
Even if we manage to get government espionage under control, what technology is allowing is for private companies to collect massive amounts of data on us. And every idiot who installs apps on their phone that require "spy on you" permissions is guilty of helping them do so and even financing them. I can't see this stopping until someone makes a sufficiently shocking news story about violations of people's privacy. Maybe someone will make an app that forwards a copy of your browsing history to your mother and significant other, and a message to you saying "this is a small fraction of what every company knows about you".
Sure, there's differences with the MOOC community. The biggest three in my opinion are that
1) The courses are free with no obligation. Because of this, people can and will sign up for trivial things like looking at part of a single lecture.
2) The environment is different. Because the dedicated school environment is replaced with the same environment where most people play their computer games, and there is no one to crack the whip, and there is no dedicated timeslot in people's schedules, people who intended to take a full course may have trouble motivating themselves to complete it.
3) The completion certificate is worthless. No one gives a crap if you completed a MOOC course or not, and if they did it would be too easy to fake/cheat. And the person taking the course has a pretty good idea of what they know, so to them it's just a pat on the back. Besides this being mildly discouraging in general, it means there is very little reason to do the often boring assignments that would be required to complete the course.
Basically, all the worst problems of a MOOC could be fixed by having a "school" where you went in on a schedule and had someone watching over you. This would provide the motivation and environment some people need to succeed, and because it wouldn't be free it would weed out the people who didn't intend to carry through and provide the motivation of a sunk cost to continue. It would also help the certificate to be worth something, because there is someone to verify that you didn't cheat and that it was, in fact, you who took the class. At this point you're probably ready to complain that doing it this way exactly eliminates every advantage a MOOC was supposed to have. However, this sort of thing would be cheaper than a regular school and would also help legitimize MOOC even for people who do it on their own.
Robots are up in ARMs about the new controllers for their arms.
If lip reading software reaches the courts, suddenly all video recording becomes wiretapping. The courts might resolve that by allowing audio recording wherever they allow video recording. Or by forbidding video recording wherever they forbid audio recording. Or maybe they will finally do something about that ancient "wiretapping" deal they've been twisting into the modern world.
Nope, the answer is specialization and marketing.
Tesla's customers are largely environmentalists, who will be that much more eager to buy due to the factory being greener. For comparison, someone buying a can of pasta sauce won't care about the specifics of the canning factory, so price is the only factor.
The other reason is specialization: most factories do one thing and do it well, and trade for whatever else. While it's entirely possibly for a company to generate its own power, grow the food its employees will eat, make its own tools, etc. that all adds unnecessary complexity and gets in the way of specialization. Instead, do the thing you're good at and buy the rest. In the case of power, I could see more and more companies adding solar panels, since so much of their cost is installation. But for now going full renewable is only for marketing purposes.
Lots of pirates are too lazy to scan their own books, but how long until every book a library has scanned ends up on the internet? And the more so because people in other countries have more trouble getting to a EU library so this will be the only way they can access the scanned books. And I'm sorry but scanned, searchable, non-DRMed books accessible to everyone are more valuable than the status quo, so once again pirates produce the higher quality goods at a cheaper price and greater convenience. It's long overdue to update our IP laws to the modern world.
Remorse is possible for a bad decision made in the heat of the moment. This man, on the other hand, was deliberate and meticulous in his abuse of several people that lasted over a *decade*.
People are routinely genuinely sorry for things they've spent decades doing (or more often than not, not doing). Do you think it's ever a good idea to waste a *decade* of your life plotting stupid revenge? There's so many better things you could do in 10 years, even if he didn't get caught it was a stupid waste of time.
I've got great news for you... you're already a big dick.
I'm sure the editors are shocked and amazed that "Google chose the test route; that it set limits on the road and weather conditions that the vehicle could encounter; and that its engineers had to take control of the car twice during the drive."
The quality of our news is going down the tubes.
"Massive study finds that they should have hired more intelligent researchers"
Who cares if they found genes correlated to intelligence but they don't directly affect the nervous system? The body is interconnected in so many ways that everything affects intelligence.
Also, academic achievement also tests for willingness to put up with bull and do boring homework, or an interest in certain subjects. To be fair though, academic achievement is probably more important than intelligence, at least for some things. For example many colleges want applicants to take the Student Aptitude Test, yet I've never heard of one wanting an IQ test.
Other studies have found that about 50% of the variation in intelligence is due to genetics. This study only looked at it from the perspective that maybe a few genes contribute a lot. It seems that the answer is it is due to a large number of genes each with a tiny effect. This is hardly surprising but it was a worthwhile test.
Is the submitter of the article a developer looking for ideas?
Well, in my opinion I'd like an app that can tell me the time and date, has an alarm, and can make the battery last for 5 years. Is there an app for that?
Personally, I think cell phones are obnoxious and should be jammed in all public places except when the cops show up.
Or jammed when the cops show up.
No different to someone saying to the device user, "Get off the network." The device is welcome to ignore the request.
And, following a patch, probably will.
Well, it could also be seen as hacking (of the device) or impersonation (of the wireless hub). If the device properly identifies itself as having nothing to do with the network when sending the disconnect request, then it would be comparable to merely a request. If not, then I see no reason we should encourage the elimination of a feature of our networks by eliminating the disconnect packet from all network code, just so a stupid jammer can work for a month while the code is eliminated.
In the case of a drone, I suspect the owner of the jammer will be considered responsible for any damage caused by booting the drone from the network, if any.
And yes, I realize that this is not a device that saturates the EM frequencies to jam a signal. But it has the same purpose and function of a jammer, of terminating the target's communications. And I think it is worse than a jammer, because it might end up deleting a feature of the internet.
You should see the smiles on the faces of slashdotters as they read this news. Seriously, hack into their computers and activate their cameras.
Why, do I first need to conduct an experiment to see how well scientific consensus correlates with accurate prediction? Or would that still not be science because authoritarianism?
Science is about falsification
Nope, science is about prediction. Anything that makes predictions must by necessity be falsifiable, the things that make the best predictions are the easiest to falsify should it be wrong. If something is false yet makes good predictions, it will be accepted until such time as circumstances are found where it makes wrong predictions, and then it will be kept even so until such time as something makes better predictions.
Case in point: Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics has been falsified, but remains in use because it makes accurate predictions with simple calculations, except for in certain extreme circumstances. This is how you judge if something was good science or bad: not if the "explanation" it has for something was right or wrong, but if it made accurate predictions. And if it made accurate predictions it will forever be at least approximately accurate.
If the evidence is strong, then present it. If the evidence is not strong, then your consensus will do nothing.
The easiest to understand evidence in this case is, in fact, the consensus. A reasonable person would conclude that there is a very small chance of people who dedicated their lives to discovering, sharing, and verifying truth, to be in some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth. And if you don't trust them, then you shouldn't trust their data either, nor their calculations.
Go gather it yourself, and make your own calculations. Only after you have done that would the data you're asking for have any value for you. For bonus points, see if you can buy the weather station data with re-distribution rights, so that you can share it afterwards.
Most non-scientists are not in a position to evaluate the claims of any given scientist.
I'm pretty sure that was the argument the Church had against releasing full, translated copies of its data, a.k.a. the contents of the Christian Bible.
This argument doesn't pass the sniff test. It is the job of a "scientist" to present claim and data that supports said claim in such a way that it may be consumed by anyone and still stand on its own, only then is there "consensus."
It's the job of the scientist to make predictions about the real world and test them. Sometimes you can double-check their work, other times to do it all yourself would require millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man-hours.
If you've got a problem with weather stations that make records and then sell them without re-distribution rights, take it up with the weather stations or the guys who wrote copyright law, or fund your own weather stations and give the data away. But ask yourself this: do you also bemoan the fact that psychologists and medical researchers don't tell you the names and personal data of the subjects in their study? Sometimes a scientist won't give you the data, and this is not unique to climatologists. After all, you can always gather your own data.
And even if they could give you the data, what are you going to do with it? Do you have a supercomputer and the know-how to debug a million lines of code simulation software? I'm sorry, but there are some things that you can't just check in a couple minutes, you'd have to dedicate your life to it and even then depend on your coworkers.
But, at the least you can see for yourself that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Rent IR goggles, and look at a heat source through a flask of CO2 and a flask of nitrogen.
The reason scientific consensus got a bad name is simple: On occasion, the scientific consensus costs powerful people tons of money. Whether it be cigarettes and cancer, or global warming, or the environmental and health costs of pollution, on occasion the scientific consensus will cost some powerful people a ton of money, and make a ton of other people feel bad about what they do.
The FUD is getting so bad that people don't even know what science is anymore: the making and testing of predictions about reality. It's not only that simple, but scientists will gleefully attack the tiniest error in another scientist's work, they'll double-check on each others' work, and have even developed methods to test a prediction when one can't trust oneself to be unbiased (double blind study). If you can't trust a scientist, who the hell does any better?
both sides cops and criminals as long as they're killing each other and not random bi-standards then i'm fine with it
...said the criminal who has committed multiple counts of felonies and smaller crimes. If you want to keep that attitude you might want to look into reducing the absurdly large number of overly broad laws. And then design a gun that can identify and refuse to shoot at law-abiding citizens.
Am I the only one concerned about all these supposedly intelligent people walking about with their heads in the cloud?
Deregulation does not equal misrepresenting your product.
Why, is there some sort of super, underegulable regulation that says you shouldn't misrepresent your product?