Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:HUD should only show vital information (Score 1) 195 195

V2V stands to be fucked up for a multiplicity of reasons: shitty engineering, corporations trying to monetize it, and privacy issues

Bad engineering and monetization efforts ought to only foobar the 1st generation products. Remember..... before Ethernet, we had DECnet, and many proprietary network protocols designed to help corporations attempt to monetize it by making themselves the patented standard everyone would have to buy.

Note we no longer use all those protocols, but the Internet still became a reality. Corporations trying to monetize don't necessarily stop an idea that is good enough that has the right community backing it who isn't willing to put up with vendor crap.

By every indication, people only say they care about privacy issues, but when it comes to actions in the real world, the vast majority people ignore privacy or will happily throw it away for convenience, free products or services, enabling them to interact with more people, or more fun toys.

Comment: Re:HUD should only show vital information (Score 1) 195 195

They'll probably "give away" the V2V enablement, and have all that stuff turned on by default, so it's maximally useful to OTHER drivers who pay for the feature, BUT for getting the V2V features that most benefit the end user, they will probably be options or "licensed feature packs", for example... you need options to have a display or warning tones to alert about hazards immediately ahead by the V2V network, or you need additional 'sounding devices' or 'display features' to show the construction/slowdown ahead.

Without the options your V2V is a "headless" sensor that will still interact with other drivers' cars as a sensor to provide information, but without providing you nearly as much benefit.

Comment: Re:Full disclosure (Score 1) 33 33

Usually an admin can solve the problem with a firewall, or by temporarily disabling a feature

A lot of problems would be fixed if we disabled Internet Exploder permanently, and Java, and Shockwave/Flash/Silverlight.

Most exploits these days are not the type that can be solved by closing a port: unless by that you mean closing outgoing ports such as port 80, and port 443.

It would also be great if we could permanently disable e-mail clients that allow you to double click an attachment.

Microsoft's "Mark of the Web" was a good idea.... until they added an Unblock button and a dialog box that lets you run the program anyways.

Comment: Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive (Score 1) 325 325

I bought shares in a company should I be compensated when the company folds?

Hey, sure.... your share of any value that is left over after all the higher-priority claimants were paid.

But Taxi medallions are not like shares in a company. The government doesn't have any duty to maintain or attempt to increase their value.

If the local authority sees fit to do so, they can likely issue out 50000 medallions for auction over an X month period, or whatever number they want, to generate more cash for the city, regardless of the affect on market value.

At some point they could choose to start issuing them in even larger quantities if they like, and then, the artificially inflated value would be over.

Comment: Re:HUD should only show vital information (Score 1) 195 195

In reality, that guy behind you in the 1987 Malibu isn't going to have it, and never will.

Until the insurance companies start requiring it in order to have the best possible insurance rate, then he will pay for the retrofit, once it doesn't make any financial sense not to add the system.

This still requires that V2V be affordable and provide sufficient benefits.

I don't see it sticking with fancy cars only.... If backup cams have been made mandatory, then I see V2V safety features becoming mandatory as well.

Comment: HUD should only show vital information (Score 1) 195 195

Don't throw distracting trivia at the driver. DO use computational methods to highlight things the driver should definitely pay attention to that might not be obvious.

For example: if the view ahead is obstructed, or visibility is limited, a supplementary warning about oncoming objects that are out of sight could be useful.

Comment: Re:but not amplifiers (Score 1) 62 62

although I'm not sure if "through the center of the earth" is the next big thing for high speed communications.

It won't be until we develop technology that can shoot neutrinos through earth, capture them on the other side, and demodulate the encoded message.

Comment: Re: How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1080 1080

Sure. Perhaps you've heard of bigamy? Alice can't marry Carol because Bob already has a vested marital interest with Alice. For example, if Alice marries Carol and dies, Carol is entitled to 100% of her assets as spouse. But so is Bob.

That's not the policy rationale for the prohibition on bigamy, and while it is perhaps a little better of a reason than administrative convenience, it boils down to the same thing, since the question of marital property is one of the issues that legislatures will have to address when the ban is overturned as it inevitably will be.

On the contrary, tradition is absolutely relevant as to whether something is a fundamental right. Marriage is a fundamental right because it's enshrined in our traditions and collective conscience. ...
Polygamy does not have such a place in our traditions or collective conscience, and therefore is not a fundamental right.

Yep, that's the bullshit argument that people were rolling out against same sex marriage all right. That because it wasn't traditional, it wasn't fundamental.

The core mistake with that argument, whether in the context of same sex marriage or marriage among persons already married, or in larger numbers than two, is that what's fundamental is not opposite sex marriage, or same sex marriage, or polygamous marriage, but simply marriage, without qualification of any kind.

Issues like gender, race, consanguinity, marital status, and number of spouses are all restrictions on that singular fundamental right. Whether they stand hinges on whether they can be justified. Two of them, it transpires, cannot be. Ultimately I think the only restriction that will hold up will be consent, and perhaps consanguinity will have to be reframed in terms of consent if it's to be salvaged.

Comment: Re:I have an iPhone 1 (Score 1) 149 149

It is now 8 years old. And using the original battery, and not having charge or capacity problems.

The longevity of the battery depends on random chance and how it's treated. The AppleCare+ thing doesn't address the concerns, because it only lasts 2 years. MOST LIKELY the battery will last longer than 2 years, but still cut short the life of the device, Especially if the battery is frequently cycled too deeply.

I have a desktop that is over 8 years old, and it's still using the original hard drive. It does not mean I should not be very concerned, if the system had a non-removable hard drive. Just because mine didn't fail yet, does not mean these things don't fail.

Comment: Re:Sorry most Americans... (Score 1) 119 119

I wouldn't use it without a parachute either. With an emergency parachute... um....

An emergency parachute is no panacea. If something goes wrong... first of all, well, the parachute can fail to open..... the shock from the parachute opening can be painful, even if not as painful as freefall into the ground.

With little/no control of where you're going.... You can land at a very inopportune place, such as grazing/crashing into the side of a building, being impaled by a vehicle antennae, having the parachute get tangled up in something, or come into contact with live electric wires.

Other nasty scenarios include landing in water or in the middle of a highway where you might be run over or other unsafe/unsuitable ground.

Comment: Re: How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1080 1080

because, as noted earlier, 3>2. Equal protection is an issue where two groups that are equally situated are treated differently. For marriage, there is no difference between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. There is a difference between a couple and a larger group, however.

The litigant needn't be the entire group. Marriage is a fundamental right, subject to various restrictions, such as consent and consanguinity. Yesterday, one of the restrictions, at least in some places, was that the genders of two of the spouses couldn't be the same. Today, it's fine nationwide if they're the same.

The restriction to look at now is whether the marital status of each spouse in the marriage at hand is single. Today it has to be. But there's not a good reason for it. (As already mentioned, administrative convenience is not a good reason). So why can't Alice, who is married to Bob, now also marry Carol? Bob isn't marrying Carol; the A-C marriage would be between two people only. You're treating Alice differently merely because she is already married.

It's also not a fundamental right, as polygamy is not part of the traditions and collective conscience of society, except for Mormons.

Marriage is a fundamental right and is extremely broad. Restrictions on marriage, such as requiring the spouses to be of opposite genders, or of the same race, or of the same religion, or of compatible castes, etc. are not inherently part of marriage and are certainly not part of the fundamental right of marriage.

Also, today's events make it clear that tradition is irrelevant; polygamy is practiced today among many groups, and has a long history back into antiquity. Same sex marriage was known in the past but was far more rare.

Comment: Re: How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1080 1080

It will certainly be a massive pain in the ass. But administrative inconvenience is not an adequate justification for denying people their fundamental rights or equal protection of the law. It'll take a while, but just as this took a while, but in time polyamororous marriages will be legally recognized.

Comment: Re:Just doing their job. (Score 1) 136 136

I think you didn't get it....

"If you've got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear"

Is the broken argument governments are using to "justify" pervasive surveillance of the people.

Why should governments be treated differently from people?

France essentially just took on new Patriot-act style surveillance legislation back in may not too long ago, that allows warrant-free phone taps, e-mail taps, keyloggers, and covertly installed cameras/recorders.

The first myth of management is that it exists. The second myth of management is that success equals skill. -- Robert Heller