Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Let's presume you're being honest for a moment (Score 1) 56

Let's review:

...And you keep presenting it the same way. And it keeps falling apart the same way, for the same reasons. Funny how reality doesn't just bend to your will.

So, that was me. And then I say

Maybe your replies are feckless.

And then you say

I think there was a topic, but you again turned it to be about me. If I had more of an ego to me I'd probably be honored in how quickly you abandoned the topic to talk about me instead, but that's not how I roll.

So you make it about me, and I push back, and then you get all hair-shirt about the topic. Or your coolness, there just is no end. None.

Comment Re:This guy should be a lawyer (Score 1) 179

Oh your car chose to kill a kid on a bike instead of hit an old person crossing the road?

What? Why do you think that a car would be programmed to hit "obstacle B" when "obstacle A" appears in front of it?

Instead, wouldn't the car be programmed to avoid ALL obstacles and apply the brakes with maximum efficiency?

You make it sound like all collision are avoidable.

But arguing over which object it will choose to run into is pointless. We already know because we have these things called "road rules" and "safety procedures" already for meat based drivers. The fact that most meat based drivers have no clue what they are is not withstanding.

If someone cuts off an automated car and emergency brakes, yes it will run up the arse of it because that is the safest procedure (nose-tail accidents have the least severe injuries). No point in arguing that there is a Nobel laureate one car and someone who is actually important in the other. The car doesn't know and the car doesn't care because that has no factor on minimising injury.

Comment Re:I don't think it will mean much (Score 1) 179

Volvo is offering to indemnifying individual owners against flaws in the self-driving system. Of course, you'd have to prove somehow that the self-driving system was responsible, and do it by going up against a massive corporation's legal department.


The first reaction of any warranty or liability claim is to find a way to blame the user. The most infamous of these in recent memory is Apple's Antennagate. More related to the Auto industry, look at how long GM ignored the ignition issue, it had to kill a dozen people before GM stopped denying it was even a problem.

Any acceptance of liability is going to be conditional, even though I'd trust Volvo far more than any other car company when it comes to safety (an old 240 is safer than some new cars, the B pillars are so strong you can rally in those things without fitting a roll cage, I'd still fit the roll cage though) this is still going to come with an 800 page document of legalese around the term "accept".

Comment Re:Bullshit ... (Score 1) 356

Yes. They omitted the diesel exhaust fluid (urea) injection system. I heard it saved about $400 per car.

Plus support costs. Sure the actual urea injection system may only be $400, but it'll end up being $1200 per car after you factor in all the externalities (design, testing, warranty repairs, spare parts, manufacturing complexity).

Beyond this, urea injection requires a consumable (commonly called AdBlue). Given that diseasels are marketed on their low fuel usage to tight fisted people (which is a false economy, but that's besides the point), being able to advertise that your diseasel doesn't need AdBlue gives you a huge edge in the tight as a ducks arse market. This is a huge factor in VW practically owning the passenger diesel market in the US (even though it's only 3% of cars, 70% of those are VW's).

Comment Re:The missing link is mental illness (Score 1) 56

Well, I can't see making it illegal to pop properly prescribed pills any more than, say, making it illegal to be gay, and for the same reason: government isn't God, and making something illegal only (a) glamorizes it, and (b) empowers greater federal government overreach.
In the same breath, I wouldn't go jacking around with my body chemistry until all diet (including fasting), exercise, and prayer had failed. And I'd encourage others to be sparing in that regard, too. Wait: does that kind of heavy-handedness fall under your definition of bigotry?

Comment Re:The answer is, "Republiucans and Democrats" (Score 1) 26

your rather malignant superstitions

Hey, that's not bigotry: that's freedom of speech!

What it offers to you is the power of distraction. You're still a political fanatic and idolator, or at least that is what you post, nothing but dogma, propaganda, and false gods.

What is a "political idolator"? I know what each word means distinctly, but you're in a fresh dimension trying to run them together.
Having personally supported and defended the Constitution in a non-theocratic sort of way, I sincerely can't figure out what you mean. Or is your #Derper full and in need of a change?

Comment Re:Troll! (Score 1) 56

So I had the time line slightly off

In fairness, your argument is only as bollocky as the rest of your arguments, so, sure.

You are trying to lie about what you yourself have written about before. Don't be ridiculous. Your own JE some time ago linked to the Heritage Foundation saying that a mandate would be needed.

Wait: what, specifically, am I lying about? You say "your candidates" as though it were meaningful. I guess it is, if you're building another of your Towers of Babel of something. It's as though you may get the same sexual release from the word "lying" that the blow-dried nitwits in the newsroom seem to get out of saying "lockdown".

You have repeatedly shown admiration for proposed "alternatives" that are the same damned bill

Can you please be specific about what piece of legislation you're talking about? As long as I am "lying" about something, it would be kinda helpful to know what it is.
Or is the point of trotting out the "L" verb to rile me?

"From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere." -- Dr. Seuss