Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Not normal driving. (Score 1) 437

It's the corner cases which will always cause these things to go wrong. And, I'm sorry, but the driver with his right turn signal on who swoops across two lanes and turns left ... or the ones who think they can use the oncoming lane because there's something in their lane ... or who randomly brake because they can see a cat a half mile away ... or cyclists who do crazy and random shit ... or any number of crazy things you can see on a daily basis ... all of these things will create situations in which the autonomous car utterly fails to do the right thing.

You say with authority that the software fails to do the right thing, but I'm not convinced that's a demonstrated fact. The software has just as much opportunity as a human does to react to these things poorly or sensibly. Many of these problems are probably best addressed by slowing down, edging over, or avoiding the object that shouldn't be where it is or is moving in unanticipated ways. People and software can both do that, or can both fail.

The software may still have an advantage: it's going to see the object immediately, while a person might be startled and panic or might take a while to realize what's going on; the software *knows* where the empty spaces are to maneuver into where a human might or might not be completely aware of all the options; and the software, if not now then probably soon, will have a better reaction time.

Comment Re:For starters... (Score 1) 829

Yeah, it was a bit tough to touch on all the subjects I wanted to mention and there was no way I could really be deep with any of them because of the length and readability reasons. I am not a writer.

Sounds like it's time to hire someone to ghost write your memoir. Or not. :)

... lady stuff ...

Sounds like you've found your way into a role that could best be called "sugar daddy" or close to it. Not pejoratives here, just condensing a few paragraphs into a term that's borderline cliche, but I guess it exists for a reason. If I understand it right, there's a personal connection, but there's also a financial imbalance strong enough it does intrude on the relationship in some ways, even if it's on the whole mutually beneficial. You're in a position to be able to provide some now and then and can enjoy it, and they're in a place where they really appreciate it, but it's also not the core of your relationship, just one of the fringe criteria.

I could almost certainly get a legally binding contract written up to protect my assets I suppose. Hell, I'd be fine even if I lost a bunch in a lawsuit. I just don't want the hassle, the risk, or having that much baggage when the inevitable breakup occurs. ... Then, we have the really awkward situation of proposing that contract or a prenuptial agreement. While they're more acceptable today they are basically saying that I don't believe the relationship will last and that I think they're a money grubbing whore. I'm not really sure how to put that in a light manner that will be honest. It's not like I can say that I'm interested in protecting them...

I'm going to disagree a little here. I have to ask, when you get car insurance, do you say, "It's because I'm planning to crash the car?" Do you have insurance on your house because it's preparation for burning it to the ground? Does health insurance mean you're trying to catch cancer? I know that a prenup, being about a relationship instead of physical stuff feels a little different and I can see that, but I think that's overly negative. You could also just look at it as a contingency plan. Contingency plans are great for *everything*. I have a contingency plan for supper, for what happens if my Friday night falls through, and what happens if my wife dies and leaves me with two little kids, or one, or none. I don't want any of these things to happen, but I've thought about all of them, to at least some extent.

It seems clear that money is already intruding upon your relationships. If it wasn't at all, I'd say that's great and drop it. But since it is, a prenup is just one of many ways to manage how and to what extent it intrudes. Acknowledging that fact doesn't necessarily turn into an insult to your partner, at least in my mind. For one semi-random data point, the financial guy Dave Ramsey, who leans pretty conservative Christian and holds the belief "when you get married, two become one in all ways" still recommends prenups when more than a million dollars is involved.

On the flip side, if past history indicates you're not entirely comfortable in strictly monogamous relationships, that's completely outside the financial discussion. I think that can be addressed, too, if you want it to be, but through mostly different means.

I am certainly open to advice or insight if you have any.

Well, I'm just some random schlub on the internet, so I'm not sure what my advice is worth. I haven't been in your situation, and the closest thing to a credential I have is "I like to think about stuff"and sometimes listen to other people's situations. Mostly I guess it depends how much you're bothered by things. If you're in a good place and were just commenting, maybe there's nothing to be done. But if it weighs on you, there's probably room for change, if you want to go for it. How's that for some ultimately weak commentary?

Comment Re:It's tough... (Score 1) 829

If it's been a year, that's a believable enough time to just say you spent it all and it's gone. Think that might work?

Besides, a million doesn't even go that far these days. Pay off a mortgage and some debts, upgrade a few things, set aside some money for kids/schooling if appropriate, invest some of it for retirement (assuming it hasn't put you into retirement mode yet) and that's basically it. Or if you have retired and it's part of your nest-egg, then it's basically tied up. Either way, it ought to be nearly all spoken for, without piles of money left to roll around in. If I were your co-worker, that's certainly what I'd assume.

Comment Re:The solution is easy (Score 1) 829

Up through a few tens of millions, I'd say this approach is possible, even if still likely difficult for many people. If we're talking on the order of 2.5 billion, it may be a different kind of problem. It's less, "How do I arrange my daily life?" and more "Should I go to mars, start an institute, or take over an island nation?" kind of money. Maybe some people could essentially ignore the burden of that tremendous potential, but I think most (particularly someone of a programmery bent of mind) would see that as a problem to be solved and feel the need to do something with it. Particularly when, like Notch, you're already in the public eye at least a little, and also know you don't want to put yourself out there more, it can be challenging.

Comment Re:give $100 million each to best friends & fa (Score 5, Insightful) 829

Until one dies of an overdose, one disappears into some kind of cult, half of the rest spend it all and blame you when you won't give them more because now they're entitled. It sounds like a good plan, but it can go bad pretty easily, too.

Comment Re:Probably will just make our jobs harder (Score 3, Insightful) 109

This is the most screwed-up stance. Benefits, all of them, are part of your compensation from the company. In my mind (not necessarily from a legal standpoint) they're obligated to provide the promised benefits, including vacation time. If they pretend benefits exist and don't let you exercise them, it's not a real benefit, it's a lie. Short-term exceptions are one thing (no, you can't take vacation during our busiest week of the year) but if an entire year passes without them finding a way to take your fully allotted amount of vacation, something is deeply, deeply wrong. It does not matter if they're chronically under-staffed. A year is more than enough time to either address it or come to terms with it and allow the existing employees to exercise their promised benefits.

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 1) 588

It depends what your theory is. If your theory is people can detect radio waves, your suggested experiment makes sense. If your theory is it's all in their mind, the original test makes more sense, because it actually tests whether psychological clues are part of the issue. Lo and behold, they can't detect radio waves and it *is* all in their mind, so it sounds like a far more informative experiment was carried out than the one you're suggesting. Yes, it goes an extra step, but it's a revealing extra step.

Comment Re:I volunteer as tribute. (Score 1) 381

Don't forget the amount of physical work they put in each day. There's an absurd amount of muscle power required for nearly every farming task. Even those that weren't farmers were probably doing physical labor, and in between doing manual work for chores and until relatively recently also walking everywhere.

Comment Re:4/5 in favor (Score 4, Insightful) 755

Well, we've got a theory and a counter-theory. Sounds like this is a fantastic experiment to attempt and see how it goes. If it's disastrous, they can change it back or attempt refinements, while the naysayers say, "I told you so!". If it works well, others can learn from it and put it to use. I'm glad someone's trying it so that we'll have some better data points.

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.