Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

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:What is the point? (Score 1) 329

However, pardon me, you are correct: It WAS the Riley case that actually put the nail in it solidly. I stand corrected on that point.

Camou was one of the Ninth Circuit case which caused a lot of the uproar that SCOTUS settled. But while it wasn't definitive, the idea that it wasn't about border searches makes absolutely no sense.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 1) 329

Damn autocorrect. It insists on putting in "probably" when I write probable.

But to clarify my point: if border searches of cell phones were exempt from probable cause, the agents could have searched it without it being "exigent to arrest". The entire thing was about whether the standard exceptions to probable cause applied. If probable cause didn't apply, logically he would have lost his case. You don't get to have that both ways.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 1) 329

The current legality of border searches of electronic property isn't fully settled (see e.g. wikipedia),

The Wikiepedia article was last edited before this appeal was decided.

but the case you're linking is completely unrelated to that issue. The decision doesn't discuss border exceptions...

Are off your nut? The entire case is about border searching and exceptions. It was the Border Patrol who had picked him up at a border checkpoint, and searched his gear. Did you even read it?

Have you read any of the independent analyses of this decision? It established solidly that a border search of electronic devices such as cell phones carry the same standards as a search under other non-border circumstances. The same standards apply, the same exceptions apply.

If different standards applied at the border, the appeal would not have succeeded. The decision was made based on the fact that none of the standard exceptions to probably cause were met.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 347

by Jane Q. Public (#49191515) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

Collision avoidance is easier in the air. There is much more room. (Compare to driving on a huge flat desert, as opposed to narrow roads.) And you can go above and below others, not merely to the left and right.

Only if you assume non-crowded airways. Get a crowd in there (which would be inevitable), and it gets very difficult indeed.

Having a flying car would be pointless if everybody had to go 10mph.

What you say is true of the current situation. But it all goes out the window if you extrapolate to a world in which most people who drive are flying instead.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 347

by Jane Q. Public (#49191415) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

Just the opposite. Consider that we developed drones long before we developed a self driving car.

Irrelevant. I agree with you: the navigation issue was solved long ago. But navigation isn't the problem. Collision avoidance is.

At the present time the probability of ANY drone collision is ridiculously low, and if it did happen, relatively little would be lost.

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...

But if everybody -- or even 30% of everybody -- were flying at the same time, this would all change.

You would have to have low-altitude "commuter lanes" which would of necessity be crowded. Collision avoidance would have to be active and dynamic... not merely relying on "lanes" for safety. Not to mention that most vertical-lift small vehicles today have rather blatant single points of failure: until you get at least four independent rotors, if one fails, down you go, and you'd likely take several others with you.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 347

by Jane Q. Public (#49191345) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?



Your first link is to the American Psychological Association, and only a 9very) brief abstract. I searched and did not find the paper anywhere that wasn't paywalled. So this doesn't really say anything. It said "evidence of impairment" at ridiculously low concentrations of 0.015% (15 mg/dl), but doesn't say anything about at what point they consider "significant", or how how impairment was measured. What was the methodology? Without that information this is meaningless. It says exactly nothing about the subject under discussion.

Your second link is just a straw-man. Quote:

[Of the five] States adopting 0.08% laws experienced 16% and 18% relative postlaw declines in the proportions of fatal crashes involving fatally injured drivers whose blood alcohol levels were 0.08% or higher and 0.15% or higher. CONCLUSIONS: It all states adopted 0.08% legal blood alcohol limits, at least 500 to 600 fewer fatal crashes would occur annually.

This says nothing about the effects of alcohol. I has to do with the effects of the law, and the behavior of people in states which passed those laws. While it might be reasonable to think there is some relationship between the two, that's not what the study shows. Further, the numbers given are of drivers who killed themselves, not of drivers who were endangering others. The whole point of the law was supposed to be about endangering others. I have zero respect for laws that try to protect me from myself.

Your third link:

There is no evidence of a threshold blood alcohol (BAC) below which impairment does not occur

Another straw-man. I don't dispute this, but it's irrelevant. The whole subject here was the point at which impairment is significant enough to endanger others. That is supposed to be the point of the law.

All of these are rather vague conclusions which skirt the real issue (which does not surprise me in the least... it is rather typical of "studies" that attempt to support a forgone conclusion).

My main point though is: even if these studies validly contradicted the ones I mentioned (they don't), that doesn't mean the ones I mentioned don't exist. Contradictory studies happen all the time. It doesn't prove me wrong, it just implies that there is controversy.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 347

by Jane Q. Public (#49191265) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

Why should death and serious injury be the deciding factor? If it reduces accidents at all - even non-fatal accidents, minor injury accidents, and no injury accidents - that's good in my book.

Because if you aren't in danger of causing death or serious injury, then you aren't significantly endangering anyone. So why make it against the law?

A world that is 100% safe for children would also be suitable for nobody but children. I, for one, don't want to live in that world.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 347

by Jane Q. Public (#49191193) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

I would like to see your studies.

I don't have the citations at hand, though I've posted them here on Slashdot at various times in the past.

The State of Idaho did its own study, in which it concluded that the driving of most people is NOT significantly impaired at 0.1% BAC. Of course, that didn't stop them, some years later, from changing the law to 0.08% anyway. Which just illustrates my point.

Over 40 years ago, the national government of Canada did a very comprehensive study involving hundreds of people, which among other things compared the effects of marijuana in various doses to the effects of alcohol in various doses. That study reached similar conclusions.

Comment: Re:It's to make the situation unworkable (Score 1) 480

by Jane Q. Public (#49191159) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

You are a troll,

An ignorant blind troll who does little more than repeatedly spread the same misinformation again and again, without regard and with complete blindness to all facts that might solve your ignorance.

If you would care to make specific accusations about the things you think I said which were wrong, I would be happy to prove otherwise.

Unless or until you do, you are just blowing hot air. I cite sources for my information, demonstrating that I am neither ignorant or lying. You have provided no information at all, much less citations. All you're doing is calling names.

Calling me ignorant doesn't faze me at all, because I know otherwise and I regularly demonstrate otherwise. If you show that I was wrong or ignorant of some subject, I'll happily admit it and correct myself. But calling names doesn't cut it, and I doubt you can do the other.

Comment: Re:Science vs Belief. (Score 1) 480

by Jane Q. Public (#49191121) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Perhaps you could explain why you think that these scenarios are not likely to happen?

Because the language of the bill says nothing about requiring any kind of personal details, or anything else that the alarmists claim it is aimed at.

I think that the language of the Bill is pretty much designed to stop the application of the Precautionary Principle as a method of environmental protection.

If by that you mean: "Rulemaking should not have to be based on sound science," then I agree: it would appear to prevent that situation.

I, for one, think that's great.

Comment: Re:It's to make the situation unworkable (Score 1) 480

by Jane Q. Public (#49191079) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

It was about climate science denial so some people would see that as a troll, but I agree that it's an abuse of mod points to vote for or against climate science by modding a post about climate science denial that is not offensive in any way.

No, it is NOT about climate science "denial". At all. It was a series of factual statements about actions by the EPA.

I did NOT say "EPA's science is bad". What I wrote was that EPA has refused to produce any actual science at all in support of its rulemaking. Good, bad, or otherwise. It wasn't a judgment about the state of climate science in any way.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 3, Informative) 329

In the US, for example, the constitutional requirement of probable cause and protecting against unreasonable search and seizure and such don't apply to their kind.

Sorry, you're out-of-date. Federal Appeals Court last year ruled that border guards DO need probable cause to search such things as computers and phones under most circumstances. The only exceptions are circumstances which would also be exceptions away from the border.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 347

by Jane Q. Public (#49186211) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

Let's be realistic. Self-driving cars are coming, but it is going to be a gradual transition. We've already seen the beginning of it with adaptive cruise control and self-parking. These features will continue to be refined while new ones are added, but we almost certainly face years (decades?) of gradual transition where our cars are some weird hodgepodge of self driving and user operated.

What's funny is this whole bit about "Where is my flying car?" when realistically it won't happen in any quantity until personal flying is almost completely automated. And I don't see that happening until we CAN, at least, make reliable automated cars.

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.).

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 3, Interesting) 347

by Jane Q. Public (#49186191) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

We don't deal with malfunctioning PEOPLE right now. Drunks, old people, and visual impaired people routinely climb behind the wheel everyday.

We don't deal with these problems, because we have bad laws. We have bad laws because politicians want to please lobbyists, and don't want to seem "soft" on crime or negligence. As a result, they pass laws that are too strict (DUI laws being a classic example: studies show the majority of people are NOT significantly impaired at 0.08%).

When unreasonable laws are passed which victimize pretty much "innocent" people, people lose respect for the law. Not just DUI but also (former or at least getting there) marijuana laws are great examples.

A self-driving system doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than what we have now when we scale it up.

Nope. Based on past advances in automobiles (ABS, airbags, power steering, computer throttle control), what will happen is that they will get released, and they will have some major screwups (or public perception of screwups anyway), and there will be a flurry of very heavy-duty lawsuits, and it will go away for a while. Then they'll come back in new and improved form. Then there will be a couple of more lawsuits, and some recalls. Sales will go down a bit and improve again. And it will gradually smooth out. Probably.

It's a bit like the "ringing" effect in some kinds of oscillators.

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen