Posts by FeRDNYC

Re: 3D? Again?

If you could do it so that it works from pretty much any viewing angle and doesn't require special glasses, then you may be onto something.

-----------------------

Stereoscopic 3d isn't true 3d, your eyes don't change their focal distance and that's why it only gives a impression of relative distance.

If someone can make a true 3d display where your eyes can't tell the difference from reality

...Neither of which will ever happen, because that's not how light works.

We've been tricked by movies and TV faking "holographic" displays where something is magically projected into 3D space, viewable from any angle, with real depth to it because the image exists in three dimensions.

Those tricks are only possible because they rely on a fixed perspective (the camera) to create the illusion. In reality, such things are literally impossible because, quite simply, physics. To project an image, you need a surface for the projection to reflect off of. The reflected image will have the shape of that surface, meaning a flat screen gets you a flat image. It can appear 3D with sufficient trickery, but it can't be three-dimensional.

The only possibilities for flaunting those basic laws of physics are to make use of the same trickery all those movies rely on, and construct your virtual image from a fixed perspective.

Stick contact lenses in someone's eyes with the ability to display graphics, and you can create real illusions of three-dimensional objects for that one person. Because you can feed their eyes all of the same information they'd be able to get from the real thing. (The lenses would also have to be able to communicate with each other, and detect and respond to the viewing direction and focus of both eyes, in order to completely sell the illusion. And if you want multiple people to see the same illusion, they all need augmented vision systems working in concert with each other.)

But for anything that doesn't literally rewrite your visual stimulus at the source, it's just not happening.

Re: Smoke and Mirrors

Full disclosure: I'm an open-source developer and advocate. I firmly believe that it's possible to both create world-class software and to make money doing so, without having to hide your code in order to secure your revenue stream. There are sufficient examples of companies demonstrating that model's workability: Red Hat, Qt, Mozilla, sorta-Google, etc. I believe that security through obscurity is no security at all, so the concept of "trade secret" protections and software patents leaves me cold. Those are the biases I bring to this conversation.

I'm assuming rigorous testing has taken place already so alleged bias has been measured for all of the software solutions on the market.

You shouldn't assume that, because the only requirement that these products be subjected to any independent testing AT ALL is in this bill that's never going to pass. Right now, for software being used to produce evidence in trials today, no testing whatsoever is required to have been performed, so how much do you really think has been done? The free market ain't gonna incentivize the elimination of biases here, heck the market probably favors biased systems. (Doesn't it always?)

Does the defendant really need to see the source code?

IMHO, yes. It's the surest way to evaluate the algorithm being employed to make decisions that are, quite literally in some cases, matters of life and death. The stakes here are not exactly low.

To be clear, not every defendant will be expected to evaluate the software being used in their prosecution. But the path towards making it possible to do so, for those with the means and motivation, is to provide everyone with that option.

Re: If you decide not to choose

If you're going to quote terrible Rush songs, at least quote them accurately:

If you choose not to decide,

You still have made a choice.

Nice spam, but as a warning for other readers,

You will see the pros and cons of Python programming language over Java, C, C++, and understand why companies prefer Python.

...You really won't.

What you'll find is a bunch of empty, regurgitated half-platitudes with no real explanation or justification. (Example: "Python has some unique characteristics that are valuable for programmers because they make coding easier." ...That's it, the claim is never expanded upon.)

Plus, you'll find blatantly incorrect nonsense like:

"Another advantage of Python programming is that no bug can originate a segmentation fault."

...Wanna BET? (This is the sentence that immediately follows the previously-quoted one, BTW. Like I said, no justifications, just jumping from nonsense point to nonsense point.)

Or how about:

"C++ or any other typical scripting language might be easier to use for constructing mobile applications or games"

#WAT. Android native code is written in Java. iOS native code is written in Swift or Objective C. There are a few exceptions (like Qt's mobile framework), but really what is this even TALKING about?!?

In a modern inversion of that, I've long since learned not to trust Home Depot's website when it reports a product is in-stock in store, unless it claims there are a minimum of three units in stock. Fewer than three, it's a 50/50 shot there will be even a single one to be found.

Re: Beware, Take Care, IT is a Crazy FCUKing Jungle out there .... Devoid of Vanquished Prisoners

Sir, this is a Wendy's....

An attempt to replace the BOFH? Oh, yes, I imagine that would completely sell out the stadium. (Despite the conclusion being foregone. RIP Korev.)

Not the Kanye/Trump transition!!! Nothing good ever comes out of seeing those two names together.

Agreed. You should comment on the episode, instead.

Re: @VoiceOfTruth - Seems like a pragmatic idea

Nice FUD, but a license is a no-backsies agreement. Something obtained under a valid license doesn't magically become "un-licensed" just because someone "changed their mind".

When firmware providers supply their blobs for inclusion in Linux distros, they do so under a license that allows redistribution. A hardware vendor can certainly decide to discontinue that practice and stop contributing any newer firmware, but it doesn't make the firmware they already contributed suddenly non-redistributable. Nor does it obligate Debian or anyone else to hunt down any previously-downloaded copies and terminate them with extreme prejudice.¹

The Linux Vendor Firmware Service has already made the appropriate sacrifices to the requisite slavering horde of IP lawyers, to have covered everyone's collective asses on this stuff.

NOTES

1. (Even with illegally-distributed content — which a "change-of-heart" firmware would not be, anyway — a distributor's obligations typically don't extend past halting further distribution of the illegal content. When a company, say, releases a movie they haven't secured complete rights to, they may be required to recall and destroy all of the unsold copies, but they aren't required to hunt down the purchased copies. They may run a buy-back/replacement program for buyers who want a refund or a corrected copy, but it's still up to purchasers of the "bad" version whether they choose to avail themselves.)

Re: IBM Jargon dictionary

I'm rather disappointed that the (SIXTY-FIVE PAGE!!!) IBM dictionary even contains a facetious — and different from Horst's version — example expansion of ACRONYM ("A Convenient Reduction Of Nomenclature, Yielding Mnemonic Syllables"), but it doesn't define or acknowledge "backronym".

Oxford Dictionaries "traced the word backronym to a 1983 letter from Meredith G Williams in 'The Washington Post'" (according to The Independent), so it'd almost definitely been making the rounds by 1990.

Grues can appear in the most unfortunate of pitch-black places anytime when you don't expect them to...

So can Riddicks, which may be even more terrifying.

I think that device is called "meth". Just make sure they get a LOT of it.

Re: Uniplex "my God, it chills me just mention the dark lord's name,"

Anyone who still uses any date format other than ISO-8601 YYYY-MM-DD is a sociopath.

Re: Written reports on pron.

Indeed. Hell is other people's porn.

Re: I'm (still) puzzled.......

Well, on at least one point:

1. The sale of hacked data (e.g. the Equifax hack)

...there is something lawmakers can do to address the problem, and that is: Make it more costly, and less lucrative (in both the financial sense, and otherwise) to collect and keep so much data in the first place. To the point that, hopefully, companies think twice about glomming onto every piece of information they can hoover up, and are more circumspect in their handling of what they DO collect.

If there's less data in third-party hands, and it's better protected, then there will be less opportunity for hackers to acquire it, and they'll come away with less when they do. Or, at least, here's hopin'.

We'd all better hope, because it's clear the only chance lawmakers have of fighting illicit data transactions is if they choke off the supply. To accomplish that, they have a choice: They can either try to educate the public about better protecting their own data, or force companies to curb their appetites.

It seems they've correctly concluded that the education option is a lost cause. (Plus, to your second point, it's awfully hard to protect yourself when companies are pulling shady tricks behind-the-scenes to invade your privacy. Even harder if those tricks are technically completely legal!

So, it's privacy laws all 'round.

Just as soon as they settle on something everyone can agr—ohhhh shit, we're fucked.

Re: "without associating coordinates with personal information"

While my cynicism regarding this sort of thing is typically more in line with Dan's, the weather data service specifically has clearly grown (in whole or in part) out of their acquisition of Dark Sky.

Witness the latest wacky coincidence: Just as Apple is ramping up their weather offering for widespread usage, a new Big-Red-Banner™ appears on https://darksky.net/ warning of firm shutdown dates for the services. (Those dates have already been pushed back something like 2 years, but it sounds like they've finally reached the, "OK, for serious people, no more extensions" point where they're actually going through with it.)

Dark Sky was never really about data collection. (The web version never even had logins or any sort of user-account featureset — at ALL!) So, even though this is based on absolutely no hard information and ultimately amounts to nothing more than a fantasy narrative on my part, I like to think that the Dark Sky team brought Apple a weather service completely devoid of tracking and spyware features, and with no easy way to tack them on after the fact.

It would be a very Apple thing, if they responded to that situation with a pivot that looks pretty much exactly like what we've just seen, where they end up touting the service's uncharacteristic lack of nosiness as a privacy feature instead.

(Obligatory — well, not obligatory, but warranted:)

RIP Keith Flint. \m/,

Re: Even more disappointed!

I must've missed when Charles Schulz took that gig animating acid trips. (Maybe I was too stoned.)

Re: We canna change the laws of physics!

> "half a billion modem ports"

Yeah, let's not go crazy now. I meant half a million. Which is still a pretty crazy number of simultaneous phone calls to be fielding, during peak hours. (AOL going unmetered in 1996 nearly destroyed us. The company spent the following 18 months frantically spinning up additional banks of modems just as fast as we could get the hardware from 3Com and the capacity from the telcos.)