Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:And what good would it do? (Score 1) 440

by Prof.Phreak (#49365995) Attached to: Why the Final Moments Inside a Cockpit Are Heard But Not Seen

The cameras wouldn't be there to help in *that* incident. It would be there to help document and train for situations that might happen on future flights---situations that may not be as clear cut at this particular incident. The argument that it would not improve aviation safety is silly...

Comment: Re:the server market cares about linux / VMware (Score 1) 362

by Prof.Phreak (#49306571) Attached to: OEMs Allowed To Lock Secure Boot In Windows 10 Computers

I can imagine a situation where Lenovo (or Dell, etc.) keep it unlocked for their "business" customers (e.g. Thinkpad line), and lock for everyone else... In a few years, that would pretty much kill off linux for anyone who casually wants to try it out on their then-"old" laptop.

Comment: Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... (Score 1) 451

by Prof.Phreak (#49290597) Attached to: Lyft CEO: Self-Driving Cars Aren't the Future

Very likely the reverse.

I'd imagine that most accidents involving automated cars will *provably* (video and telemetry info and all that) be human operator's fault (or the other driver)... suddenly humans will find their insurance go sky high, while insuring a self driving car will be dirt cheap (they'll be harder to steal too).

Comment: Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... (Score 1) 451

by Prof.Phreak (#49290565) Attached to: Lyft CEO: Self-Driving Cars Aren't the Future

All your concerns are valid, BUT, do you really think that "average human driver" makes the right decisions that much better than the potentially *random* behavior an automated car will display in all these extreme scenarios? Yes, lets say an automated car runs over a child (and saves the dog)... but do you really think the "average human drive" would do any better???

My guess, automated systems will prove to be several orders of magnitude safer overall than current human operators... there will still be accidents, but they'll be much more rare (and perhaps much more deadly, but if accident rate goes to 1% of what it is now, that would be huge---so much so that human driving may actually be banned on most streets).

Kind of like "most car accidents involving trucks" are *not* caused by the truck driver mistake... the future automated car accidents will probably not be caused by computer error, but by someone being stupid around one.

Imagine everyone staying in lane, maintaining speed, distance, etc. And actually driving the posted speed limit on city streets (even automation wouldn't have much problem slowing down from 25mph for a child (or dog, or tumbleweed) on the road).

Comment: Re:"Difficult to install" == "Difficult to compete (Score 1) 149

by Prof.Phreak (#49086367) Attached to: Google Faces Anti-Trust Probe In Russia Over Android

I think one of the reasons Amazon's phone failed was because it was tightly coupled with the amazon echosystem and not the google echosystem---the same exact phone sold by "google" [e.g. marketed as "nexus" line] (even at the same price) would've done MUCH better in the market. It's not just "uh oh, you're bundling your services with the apps"... it's that people actually *want* those apps and services and often wouldn't buy the device otherwise.

Also, plenty of manufacturers roll their own Android, so what are they complaining about? If you don't like it, recompile your own and convince folks to use it.

Comment: Re: Who cares what RMS wants? (Score 1) 551

by Prof.Phreak (#49015333) Attached to: RMS Objects To Support For LLVM's Debugger In GNU Emacs's Gud.el

It's not 'using', it's quite bit of updating (e.g. greenplum was essentially postgresql updated to work on multiple nodes).

I don't think anyone is raising up the "using" part as being inherently bad---even stuff compiled with GCC is "OK" by most standards... It's taking open source and recompiling it into your closed source product that GPL is objecting to (and it's perfectly fine with some open source licenses... just not GPL).

Comment: Re:Kinetic has problems with indirect fire ... (Score 1) 517

by Prof.Phreak (#48997143) Attached to: The US Navy Wants More Railguns and Lasers, Less Gunpowder

current depleted uranium ordinances aren't railgun-line-of-sight deals and yet still cause enormous damage... It doesn't have to be going *that* fast to do damage (e.g. take a few pounds of aluminum and send it at a ship at say 2x the speed of sound, and it will do lots of damage even without any explosives---and yet still be traveling in a parabolic curve).

Good day to avoid cops. Crawl to work.