Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Do pilots still need licenses? (Score 1) 331

by Firethorn (#49190171) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

What part of autonomy is missing?

It can't get you to your destination if your destination is off road, if there is significant construction in between, significant rain, snow or ice on the road, etc...

Right now it's equivalent to a very safe 'fair weather' driver. The type that stays home if conditions aren't optimal.

Comment: Re:Responsibility belongs to the driver . . . (Score 1) 331

by Firethorn (#49190133) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

Nonsense, the insurance would never get shifted onto the manufacturer, because maintenance happens after that, and is part of the accident risk.

Over in England, the cost for insuring a young/new driver is apparently so out of whack that car companies are selling their cars with 3 years of full coverage insurance included. Now, yes, these are cheap cars of the type that aren't likely to do as much damage even if they hit something else, but the manufacturer is already including the maintenance and insurance for the first 3 years in the price.

At a big enough discount that there's apparently not much of a 2nd hand market for these cars.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 331

by cayenne8 (#49188541) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?
I'm a little puzzled at the ascertains to begin with, with reference to actives you would require a self driving car for....?

Per the article:

"Self-driving cars promise a future where you can watch television, sip cocktails, or snooze all the way home"

I mean....geez, aside from the sleeping part, that's not that uncommon now for REGULAR cars. The console screens are pretty easily bypassed to allow watching video anytime, and well...it isn't that big a deal to pour a cocktail for the road, hell, that's why folks try to catch as many of the plastic Mardi Gras cups here during carnival season, so that you have a sturdy disposable "to-go" cup to make a beverage for the road with when leaving the house......

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 2) 331

by Firethorn (#49187429) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

The collision-avoidance problem, in some ways, is multiplied in the air. At least on the ground you have specific lanes with traffic control devices on them (lights, etc.).

Just the opposite. Consider that we developed drones long before we developed a self driving car. You can program specific lanes for flying, they're used all the time by commercial aircraft, but by the same token there's a lot less static clutter, margins are greater(no worrying about whether the kid on the side of the road will dart out), etc...

There are reasons why we developed self-piloting plants decades before we developed self-driving cars.

Comment: Not completely self-driving (Score 2) 331

by Firethorn (#49187409) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

Actually, this would be a problem. The USAF is currently struggling with some of this - they automated their drones too much, operators don't have enough to do to keep proper attention on the drone in case something does happen. They're actually considering removing some of the automation...

I don't disagree that this is the most likely current situation, but it's going to be virtually impossible to keep the driver from doing other things as you remove more responsibility and control from them.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 2) 331

by Firethorn (#49187403) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

An airplane doesn't have this fail safe stop option, and needs to have human overlords present at all times to take control if something happens the programmers didn't foresee.

Even then, there's arguments for removing the human pilots today because they actually cause around half the accidents.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 331

by Firethorn (#49187397) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

On the other hand, if you study actual injury statistics inside the USA, you'll find that you don't see serious increases in serious injury accidents until around .2%.

The majority of fatal accidents involving alcohol as a real contributing factor are well above .2%, so if .05 is lost within statistical noise, is it really saving lives?

Comment: Re:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 211

by Firethorn (#49185483) Attached to: <em>Star Trek</em> Fans Told To Stop "Spocking" Canadian $5 Bill

My point is some people seem to believe that if a business refuses to accept your cash in payment you are discharged of the obligation to pay; which is not the case.

Again, I'll clarify a bit: I'm not saying a business can't refuse cash. It CAN in 'most' cases. The ONLY time it's obligated to accept cash is when you actually OWE them money. My common example would be the sit-down restaurant. The meal has been delivered and consumed, the debt created.

Then, per 31 USC 5103, US currency is legal tender for that debt. While UCC article 3 might not apply(I've seen judges contort more to make something applicable), you've still made a valid offer to pay.

This can be modified in some ways with a previously agreed upon contract, but unless the business has gone out of it's way to tell you that cash isn't accepted before they extend you credit, they have to take it.

Like I said, if they end up taking it to court, the worst the court is going to do is tell them to take the cash and be happy, assuming that the 'cash' isn't in some crazy state like 'all pennies', 'folded into 10k paper cranes' etc...

Oh yeah, and they're not obligated to take partial payment.

Comment: Re:Great product bloodlines (Score 1) 55

by PopeRatzo (#49185413) Attached to: A Versatile and Rugged MIDI Mini-Keyboard (Video)

The QuNexus also has control voltage outputs for directly triggering analog/modular gear.

That is great news. I've got a room full of old modular synths, like a Serge suitcase model and an early Arp.2600. Not to mention a Steiner-Parker that looks like it should have a 1930's phone operator sitting at it.

I've built some home-brew triggering controllers, but none of them are anywhere near as good as what McMillan makes.

Comment: Re:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 211

by Firethorn (#49185237) Attached to: <em>Star Trek</em> Fans Told To Stop "Spocking" Canadian $5 Bill

Do you have a citation on how the courts handle a reasonable attempt to pay in cash? IE bills of reasonable denomination that have not been defaced or altered?

Okay, they don't have to accept $100 worth of pennies or $10k worth of $1 bills. What about 5 $20 bills or 100 $100s*?

*$100 being the highest denominator in common circulation

Comment: Re:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 211

by Firethorn (#49185077) Attached to: <em>Star Trek</em> Fans Told To Stop "Spocking" Canadian $5 Bill

Not really. When you go to a store, the seller has no obligation to sell you anything.

The context, in this case, is a sit-down restaurant. The meal has already been served and consumed. You're not getting it back. The eater has incurred a debt with the restaurant for the price of the meal.

They have to accept cash at that point. A gas station or McDonalds would be free to keep their product and refuse the cash, because the exchange hasn't happened yet.

Comment: Re:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 211

by Firethorn (#49185047) Attached to: <em>Star Trek</em> Fans Told To Stop "Spocking" Canadian $5 Bill

Sure - I'll just quote UCC Article 3, Negotiable Instruments, part 6. Discharge and payment.

(a) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract.

(b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.

(c) If tender of payment of an amount due on an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the obligation of the obligor to pay interest after the due date on the amount tendered is discharged. If presentment is required with respect to an instrument and the obligor is able and ready to pay on the due date at every place of payment stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemed to have made tender of payment on the due date to the person entitled to enforce the instrument.

And 31 USC 5103 - United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

So I submitted legal tender and you refused. I'm happy because you just 'wrote off' my debt.

I'll note that the MOST the courts would do is tell you to accept my cash.

Comment: Re:I believe (Score 1) 211

by Firethorn (#49184975) Attached to: <em>Star Trek</em> Fans Told To Stop "Spocking" Canadian $5 Bill

18 US Code 333 - Mutilation of national bank obligations:

Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

It's not intent to defraud, but merely that it wouldn't be suited to be reissued. So those 'track this bill' stamps are okay, because they can be reissued. Drawing a lewd image on them, knowing that the bank wouldn't knowingly reissue it, would be.

Comment: Re:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 211

by Firethorn (#49184941) Attached to: <em>Star Trek</em> Fans Told To Stop "Spocking" Canadian $5 Bill

31 USC 5103 - Legal Tender and UCC 3-603 Tender of payment disagree.

Keep in mind the difference between a sale and a debt. If you OWE a company money, they must accept cash to settle it. If you're PRE-PAYING, ie giving them payment before the good is provided or service rendered, then they don't have to accept cash to provide the service.

If at first you don't succeed, you must be a programmer.

Working...