How can the state of California guarantee that without price controls, then.
The things sounds more like a political goal.. Not something they plan to enforce by law... And if they plan to do so, it'll probably be through added taxes to conventional cars..
Either way, this smells of a CEO who didn't invest electric car development now wants to stop politicians from promoting electric cars...
Yea, because the government totally won't have a backdoor already installed at the factory for dealing with... let's call them "undesirables."
What makes you think they don't already have that... most cars can be drive to accidents electronically these days...
I call it the aggressive, psychotic driver who makes random, unsafe lane changes, fails to signal, and swoops across several lanes of traffic while doing well over the speed limit.
Lemme see your driverless car handle that, then we'll see.
I personally look forward to driverless cars... no more looking before crossing the street..
If you want to cross the street just jump out in front of a car...
I saw one of the cars when I visited Mountain View a few weeks ago, and I was so tempted to jump out infront of it to see what happens
Just because one set of criminals gets off easier than they should, it does not follow that all other criminals should be treated leniently.
What good does it do?
How come Americans can only want harsher punishment?
Sure, what he did was bad... But one year in prison is enough. He will have learned the lesson.
Giving him 4 years, isn't going to make a difference. Except, it'll cost money to lock him up, and he will have a harder time getting a new job when he gets out, there by costing society even more money.
Oh, and he won't pay taxes for 4 years.
It's not like people do this stuff after having consider the consequences.
it also gives the government the ability to disable people's guns at will. This is very scary. You trust them to use this responsibly ignores just about all history of the US government.
Again, nobody said the guns should be networked... That's is just speculation.
On second thought, that sounds pretty appealing.
Imagine a protest where we could simply disable all firing mechanisms of police firearms.
Because when there is a protest the police is always the bad guys? That is a messed up world view...
or mabey we could tackle larger social issues that drive shootings in the first place, but that seems to be too hard.
Yeah, if you want to solve poverty without spending money, that is going to be hard.
On the other hand you could make higher education free, provided free healthcare and wealthfare that covers housing and food for a family in need.
Social mobility is key, it's not enough that there is a slight possibility of making it. It's about making it easy to make it into the middle class.
No, robotic taxis will monetize the poor the same way they do now: by licensing only a limited number of companies to operate the taxis.
How does that monetize the poor? They won't be hire by taxi companies anymore...
The GP really did have it right.
To be fair... I was just saying that the poor, who can't afford new auto-driving cars will keep paying fines for speeding (assuming their cars can speed at all).
I was being sarcastic... the point of my post was that the income from fines is not significant compared to all the other things we invest in transportation.
Like all these stories, $5,000 may be the "sticker" or asking price. How many sold at this price or at any price is the important metric.
The market for this kind of software is fairly small.. so 5k is very cheap... it's probably not feasible to hire real developers to do this.
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy could be making more money making enterprise software. SharePoint plugins, various CMS plugins, etc...
To a petty thief 5k is a lot of money, but for a legitimate business it's rather cheap, compared to doing any kind of development.
As it is now, people are forced to fight and win/lose, the system costs rise.
Speeding tickets is the one place where plea bargins makes sense... So yeah consider that...
On topic, this article is ridiculous.. most Americans won't be able to afford a new self driving car for years... So the poor will still have to pay tickets for many years to comes (you really have well rigged system for the rich).
Either way, when self driving cars are dominating you'll also see other things, such as: fewer accidents, less time wasted in traffic, less wear and tear on the road. All things that save the state money.
Not to mention all the productive hours people spending in traffic, where they could be productive, make money and generate even more taxes.
Better transportation is probably good for the economy.
Once the police are happy enough with the technology to use it exclusively, then a mandate is appropriate.
I'm not holding my breath.
That makes sense... whilst the police, in the US, certainly have a legitimate need to carry arms. They also have an incentive to use these guns, if they are reliable. As it'll make it harder to use an officer's gun against him.
I am surprised by this outbreak of common sense from an organization that often have very little empathy for.
Don't worry I'll stop my preacher on why guns shouldn't be allowed in the first place, fixing a America is beyond the scope of a slashdot post anyways
My point was: There is too much common sense.
Regarding mandates, why don't you take that discussion when the technology is reliable. Maybe you should have build in camera too
Or maybe you should just reduce the classes of weapons available to normal people for other than sports with appropriate safety measures...
Either way, take that discussion when technology is mature.
yeah right - just like in communism the government is supposed to eventually fade away...
I haven't heard that one before... But I suspect that like most Americans you probably don't really know what communism is... And have a tendency to confuse it with totalitarian dictatorships.
Either way, I fail to see the relevance
That is some serious wishful thinking.
Maybe... But DRM is the case for now with or without Mozilla. There is no way the content industry will let NetFlix and Hulu will drop DRM right now.
So what is the alternative, denying people NetFlix and Hulu? We all know they'll go to Chrome and IE, or NetFlix will make a binary plugin for Firefox, which won't be sandboxed.
The only reason DRM went away on music is because Apple did some economic jujitsu on the publishers making them choose between money or control, apple's complete domination of music DRM meant they could dictate terms to the industry as long as the industry required DRM.
Let's hope netflix grows powerful enough...
(1) Why do you think they encrypt the streams individually instead of just once and store the encrypted files on their server just like bluray discs of the same movie all have identical encryption?
NetFlix don't implement DRM out the evil in their hearts
They do it because the content industry requires it... And the content industry requires each stream to be encrypted individually... They require a complicated protocol that ensures that each device is uniquely identified...
Security through obscurity is complicated (no surprise there).
(2) Encryption is super cheap now that dedicated hardware is built into modern CPUs - a typical Xeon processor can do 700MB/s with AES-NI on just one core. Intel makes Xeons with 15 cores per chip nowadays.
But building a large CDN with this kind of special hardware is expensive, very expensive. Without DRM movies could be streamed directly from a normal CDN.
I think the other EU countries need to start getting together and saying to the UK that they need to either adopt ALL of the EU rules (including the Euro, Schengen, Net Neutrality, human rights etc etc) or get out of the EU completly and fend for themselves.
Lot's of EU countries have exceptions to their EU membership. There is a lot of countries without the Euro.
Ideally, the EU shouldn't be pick and choose... but some pragmatism is necessary.
For example, my country is going to vote on whether or not to join the new EU patent court. I recommend people to vote "NO".
I generally like the EU, but I don't trust the patent system and making it bigger only makes it worse.
You are assuming that without membership in the EU, the UK and/or the members of the EU will start imposing mutually harmful restrictions. In whose interest would that be?
None, but the EU was constructed to prevent this...
Without the EU, it would happen in small bits... France would try to protect it's movie industry... And then there is another exception...
And somewhere down the road Europe would be back to where it was a 40 years ago. EU ensures big agreements where everybody agrees not to protect their own industries and this results in a large free market.
Is a blockage going to help the ultimate objective, that is to stop crime? Does it not drive criminals underground in many cases?
It certainly complicates access... And whilst most slashdotters won't have a problem connecting to a dark net.. It's a high barrier of entry.
Stopping crimes is not always about making it impossible, just more complicated and harder to do...Even a locked car can be stolen.
Oh wait, stopping crime is not the ultimate objective, control of communication is. Go ahead.
Go ahead and bluntly assume every country is corrupt, just because yours is...
IMO dns blocking is an acceptable counter-measure. Because technical people who wants to go around it can just pick a non-default DNS-server. But if your not technically inclined it raises the barrier and complicates access.
Note, this could be illegal images, terrorist videos, illegal casinos or scam sites (these really should be blocked).
One can only imagine what other functionalities this CDM module will have.
Yeah, it might mine bitcoins, but if it wants to inspect your computer, get a cross-site unique id, look at your files, etc... It'll have to break out the sandbox in which it is placed. See the picture here:
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014...
So unlike the flash plugin, it won't be able to do much...
"Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal." - Zaphod Beeblebrox in "Hithiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
