Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Cup holders (Score 1) 211

That is why for a VERY long time there were no cup holders in the car. You shouldn't be drinking your coffee - you should be *driving*.

That wasn't a Porsche thing. That was a German thing. I owned several VWs which were decidedly NOT "drivers cars" which didn't have cup holders either. Hell I owned an '85 Sirocco which was sporty but utterly lacked cup holders.

And in my opinion it's MY freakin' car and if I want to drive it and drink coffee then Porsche can take their opinion and shove it.

Comment Self driving tech is useful beyond taxi service (Score 1) 211

Why would any poor benighted fool pay money for a Porsche that didn't need to be driven?

Self driving technology is orthogonal to whether or not the car has controls for a humans to use. You can have a car that is primarily driven by a human with self driving tech available OR you can have a car that is primarily self driven with controls for human override OR you can have a vehicle without human controls at all. For a Porsche I would see the first option being used. The car is primarily human driven but self driving tech is there to keep the human out of trouble and (someday) to be available for taking over the controls if desired. If you're driving your car 300 miles on the highway in traffic are you REALLY getting a lot of driving enjoyment? Self driving options would be nice to have at that point. Or sometimes people driving fast cars drive them faster than is objectively prudent and self driving tech could help keep them from wrapping the car around a phone pole. Some people who buy Porsches and drive them fast aren't as good of drivers as they believe they are. The 911 has a well deserved reputation for punishing drivers who don't really know what they are doing.

So yeah, if Porsche isn't looking into this stuff then they are being Luddites. The utility of self driving tech goes well beyond turning cars into taxis without human drivers.

Comment Self driving tech doesn't mean you can't drive (Score 1) 211

If you actually think that Porsches' position on so-called 'self-driving' cars is a Luddite attitude, then you don't at all get what Porsche is all about in the first place. It's a driver's car, not just transportation.

Being a driver's car doesn't mean self driving tech would be useless. So instead of actually steering the car you have the self driving tech as a sort of careful watcher to help insure the driver doesn't crash the car. Think of it like stability control or traction control or ABS on steroids. Hell, Porsche developed a rear drive sports car which is a ridiculous thing to do and they put all kinds of electronic driving aids to keep the car pointed in the right direction. What would be bad about self driving tech that helps you avoid crashes when you are driving said ridiculous rear engine car faster than is objectively prudent?

Comment Customers don't know what they want (Score 1) 211

It wouldn't make any economic sense for Porsche to pursue a path that doesn't intersect with their goals and customer wishes.

Just remember Henry Ford saying. "If I asked my customers what they wanted they would have said a faster horse". You can't ignore your customers but customers are in many cases demonstrably poor at figuring out what they really want particularly when we are talking about new technology. Porsche customers might say they want a driver's car but NOBODY really knows what self driving tech will bring to the party so in truth they really don't know if they want it or not. It might be that some of the tech will hugely appeal to people who want to drive their car but do it better and safer. Nothing wrong with driving the car but having a computer to help keep you safe and alive.

Comment Self drive vs driving yourself (Score 1) 211

If you stick self drive in a porsche you have pretty much lost 99% of its bragging rights.

Umm, you are aware that having self drive in a car and actually driving it yourself are not mutually exclusive options, right? You can put self drive technology on a car intended to be primarily driven by a human.

Comment 30,000 KWh per year? (Score 2) 211

Doing the maths, that works out at a continuous average of 3.4KW, which is slightly more than a single 13A socket in the UK. If we multiply by 3 (an overcompensation) assuming that those 30,000 KWh are collected during 8 hours of each day, that is still only enough to simultaneously run 3 kettles.

Comment Re:$40K still a lot for most folks (Score 1) 37

The difference is what can be done about it.

If the market decides that it's not important for people to have this, then the only way to change that is for the people who need it to somehow become rich. If the regulators decide people shouldn't have this, then the voters can change that. And if you factor in the increased independence and productivity of the recipients, it might not cost that much.

Of course the way we do it now is we force employers to make accommodations. That's better than nothing, but statistically the public is still paying; the burden is just randomly concentrated on a few unlucky employers.

Comment Re:Be careful of what you wish for... (Score 4, Insightful) 41

Their goal was to make a system capable of mimicking the knowledge and intuition of human security analysts so that attacks can be detected in real time.

That boils down to letting the expensive firewalls do their job and checking the log files later on. Meanwhile, back to minesweeper.

No, it boils down to having the computer check the log. Meanwhile, since your skillset has now been automated, back to McDonald's.

Comment Fantasy versus reality (Score 2) 309

We know how to build ships that can reach 0.2c

Until we actually build one and it travels that fast that is not true.

Problematic is it to scale that for humans ... however I'm pretty sure most of us will witness the first probe going to an other solar system.

Not in my lifetime. Not in yours either.

Comment Need way more than a few strong backs (Score 1) 309

That is a valid point but gravity is lower as well. You'd only need the abilty to move 38% the weight you would on earth right? It wouldn't be glamorous work but given a winch and a few men...

And space suits and food and oxygen and habitats and tools and tools to make tools and water and communications gear and construction equipment and the list goes on and on and on. You are taking SOOO many things we have here on earth for granted. I'm as big a fan of working towards colonizing other planets as you'll find but I don't think a lot of people appreciate the difficulty of the endeavor unless you intend it to be a one way suicide mission.

Comment Moon colonization (Score 4, Interesting) 309

Living on the moon isn't that interesting, because there is almost nothing useful up there except for solar energy.

Think so? The moon has no atmosphere so it is potentially awesome for astronomy. The moon could provide a useful base for deep space exploration as its gravity well is much smaller than Earth's. It could be a source of raw materials. It may be possible to produce propellant on the moon. The moon consists of more than moon dust and reflected sunlight.

The goal should be to become self sufficient on Mars.

A fine goal but how do you get there? It's not hard to make a reasonable argument that colonizing the moon (which is much closer) could be a useful stepping stone to the goal of Mars and beyond. Putting an entire infrastructure to support human habitation on another planet is a monumental undertaking and we don't even have a fraction of a percent of the technology needed to do that. The Moon could be very useful in development of some of that technology.

If you can do that, you can make real progress towards colonizing the solar system because you don't have to bring everything from earth.

I could make the same argument regarding moon colonization.

Comment Re:Shit (Score -1, Troll) 325

How is the UK acting "shitty" here?

The UK is helping the US punish Assange for airing their dirty laundry, in order to intimidate anyone else who might, so the state can keep its citizens from exercising democratic control over its actions by keeping them ignorant of said actions. In other words, the UK is assisting the US in a coup against their own populations.

Slashdot Top Deals

10 to the minus 6th power Movie = 1 Microfilm