Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Na, it's marketing hype. (Score 1) 112

I mean, it probably *will* be world-changing technology, but "Goddard stage" is not a useful term. There are experiments, proof-of-concept products, prototypes, and production products. Quantum Computing doesn't have anything approaching a "quantum chip" where it's just a question of manufacturing details. It's just barely beyond proof-of-concept stage. There's nothing approaching a prototype of a quantum processor that can do useful work. IBM claims they have a design for a scalable processor, but you know what they say about the difference between theory and reality.

Comment Re:Not the best summary... (Score 1) 195

No, it's not the same problem at all. *No* vaccine is perfect, whether it's because the pathogen mutates slightly, or because the immune system doesn't learn that the (harmless) pathogen in the vaccine was harmful. The way vaccines work isn't perfect immunity, but herd immunity. They work well enough to prevent outbreaks, which is a public health concern, and if you're one of the lucky ones for whom the vaccine worked, then you're better off too. Unfortunately, there's no way to know, beforehand, whether your individual vaccination will work without deliberately exposing you to the pathogen, which is both unethical, and an unnecessary risk.

Some pathogens mutate quickly, like the flu, so vaccines are only good for a very limited time. We know this. But they will mutate with or without a vaccinated population, so it doesn't make sense not to vaccinate just because it won't be perfect.

Antibiotic resistance is a problem, but again perfect use of antibiotics is only a mitigating factor for resistance, not a panacea, because no antibiotic is perfect either. At some point we will need to find either new antibiotics, or alternative treatments. It's actually much easier to develop new vaccines than to find new antibiotics.

Comment Sitting in Driveways (Score 1) 252

autonomous cars are more likely to be shared and constantly in use, rather than sitting in your driveway 90% of the time.

Sorry, no. If I want to "share" a car, I'll call a taxi, or uber. The whole point of owning a car is that it's there when you need it, and since 90% of the people need 90% of the cars at the same (local) time, namely rush hour, it's not going to benefit me to share the car. Especially if I hop in to find dirty upholstery, or trash in the car, or physical damage to the interior.

That said, electronics are cheap. No matter how expensive they were to develop, once mass-produced, the total cost quickly approaches the cost to manufacture. The reason electronics like navigation and cameras are expensive in cars today is because they can charge a ridiculous amount. Charging for "premium audio," or "lane departure" is all about market segmentation -- charging people 25% more for the same car. Once features start coming standard on low-end models, then new features are added to charge more for, and the process continues.

Since "automated driving" is a pretty basic feature of a driverless car, the technology itself shouldn't cost much once it hits critical mass. At that point, expect car manufacturers to add butt-fluffer massage seats and augmented reality windows and charge thousands. And of course, the "premium audio" upsell will never go away.

Comment Re:Critical thinking (Score 1) 132

It seems ridiculous to have an entire course dedicated to STI prevention. Is it just relabeled sex-ed, or do they have a separate course for that?

Also, what is the alleged political motivation? Preventing STIs is a pretty big public health issue. I don't hear anyone complaining that they teach about DUIs in Driver's Ed, for example.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Working...