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:Long range outlook: batteries or fuel cells? (Score 1) 229

The real underlying problem is the energy source. There's no economic source now nor on the 20 year horizon for H2. Techies like to tinker with it, just like anything else, and I can certainly understand that. But it's really serves oil companies in two ways: 1) the most economic source is fossil fuels, and 2) it's not going to displace much fossil fuel anytime in the foreseeable future, so it serves to distract from technologies that might.

Comment: This could be just the thing... (Score 1) 224

by DriveDog (#49247089) Attached to: California Looking To Make All Bitcoin Businesses Illegal
...that pushes cryptocurrencies into truly anonymous exchanges. Up to now, most that demanded anonymous exchanges were trying to hide something. A few were Libertarians who just wanted privacy on principle. The rest just wanted to try it or to use it for convenience. But if the state tries to control all usage of it, that will drive most uses to demand anonymity, and solid means of achieving that will appear.

Comment: Re:Becasue... the children! (Score 1) 190

by DriveDog (#49246697) Attached to: Powdered Alcohol Approved By Feds, Banned By States
Good point. But they've spent billions on brands and convincing the public that everything in their liquids is good and necessary. However, I'm betting it's more the distributors and retailers that don't want it. They're comfortable with what they have. There probably won't be a big increase in overall alcohol sales, so anything that sells instead of traditional spirits might not go through their channels. Why take a chance? Just get the buddies in the legislature to nip it in the bud, as Barney would say. There's not yet an big organized resistance to the powder by parties worried about health or social consequences, so there's got to be some reason for legislators to move on it. Follow the money.

Comment: Kind of like cooperation between FBI and CIA... (Score 1) 245

by DriveDog (#49149247) Attached to: The Peculiar Economics of Developing New Antibiotics
If the use of all antibiotics were subject to rules from under the same roof (FDA), I seriously doubt we'd have such outrageous misuse of them on livestock. Get control out of the hands of the Ag Dept. Developing new antibiotics is a must, but the rate at which they become ineffective has got to be slowed.

Comment: Consumers fault, but not the way most think (Score 1) 114

by DriveDog (#49147271) Attached to: Schneier: Everyone Wants You To Have Security, But Not From Them
It's not that typical users don't understand how anything works and aren't willing to find out (though that annoys many of us). It's that they're busy salivating over the latest hyped product ("can't way for 6!") instead of demanding decent security and demanding that things be done right. When did parents stop teaching their kids to not take candy from a stranger? Everyone's eating apples with razor blades and only complaining when they nearly bleed to death.

Comment: long run danger (Score 1) 318

TFA lists short run arguments against autonomous robot killers, but a long run argument is that with them, the arms race will get so out-of-control that it will entirely consume the worlds' economies. Once both "sides" have them, they'll just fight amongst themselves, and both sides will have to deploy better and more numerous bots. Since no humans will be dying, there'll be much less pressure to restrict the scale of the wars. With R/C killers, there's still some limit on how many killers can operate per human (necessary to make the kill decision). Even if they do everything autonomously except kill, that still imposes some kind of limit. What happens when all the world is destitute? Chaos, unrestricted warfare, etc. So banning these things isn't a bad idea. The biggest problem I see with enforcing a ban is discerning between R/C killers and fully autonomous killers. R/Cs will become so sophisticated that they'll do everything themselves up to the point of pulling the trigger. From an outside observer, would it be clear whether a human ordered it to execute or an additional single line of code did it? "Today there are no victims of fully autonomous weapons..." Really? How do you know? Author should have said "...as far as I know."

Comment: Re: Gotta look at the source... (Score 2) 252

by DriveDog (#49112601) Attached to: No Tech Bubble Here, Says CNN: "This Time It's Different."
8 years, this year. But when the people whose 401ks are worth 1/2 what they were 8 years ago still don't recover this year, you're going to have to start saying "9 years". There was a permanent loss of wealth, or at least the value on paper of it, and it's not coming back. Gains since then are gains since then, not restoration of what was lost. 401ks and the current "retirement system" are deeply flawed, because they were designed to supplant pensions, not to sufficiently support the retirees.

People will buy anything that's one to a customer.

Working...