Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Defective (Score 1) 345

You said " someone needs to get cracking with that recall" and "It doesn't invalidate anything I wrote". So what precisely do you expect to be recalled due to this case of a person accelerating a car towards a group of people?

What I wrote stands for the situation described in the headline, summary and article. We'd obviously have to allow for physics (i.e. a car won't stop immediately at 70mph, and pedestrians wearing black radar-cloaking clothing at night are probably fucked), but otherwise get it right or get it off the road.

If the car wasn't actually operating autonomously, sure, what I wrote wouldn't be directly applicable to this situation. It's still the right way to handle the failure at it was described.

Comment: Re:Defective (Score 1) 345

That's only true if the capability is supposed to be used without supervision

Hm. Legit point, but then you have to ask whether the driver reasonably understands how the assistive technology works well enough to be able to supervise it, and also how easily they can stop the process if things go wrong (i.e. if the assistive technology requires the driver to take their limbs off the wheel, brakes and accelerator in order to work reliably, then it's pretty much guaranteed that they won't be able to act quickly enough to prevent an accident).

Comment: Re:Defective (Score 2) 345

It wasn't doing any autonomous movement so your premise is garbage and thus the rest of the post meaningless.

So, you're saying the "self-parking" bit the headline, summary and article describe is a complete red herring and had nothing to do with what the car was actually doing at the time?

  If you say so. It doesn't invalidate anything I wrote, it just might not be applicable to the situation that the headline, summary, and article all apparently failed to describe.

Comment: Defective (Score 0, Flamebait) 345

Any vehicle that is capable of any kind of autonomous movement that doesn't include pedestrian (or dog, or cat, or cyclist) detection is defective, period.

Any auto manufacturer that makes such a vehicle is 100% liable for any deaths or injuries that happen during said autonomous movement, period.

This isn't rocket science. This should be considered "seat belt saves lives" level of mandatory.

Now, someone needs to get cracking with that recall...

Comment: Re: Apple ][ was a great product (Score 1) 74

by cpt kangarooski (#49745473) Attached to: In 1984, Jobs and Wozniak Talk About Apple's Earliest Days

Though there was a good reason for the original compact Macs to discourage users from opening them up -- there were exposed high voltage monitor electronics in there which could give you a hell of a zap of not properly discharged.

The later all in one Macs of the 90s were better in that regard. Their user suitable parts (motherboard, drives) all were easy to get at, but the monitors and power supplies were fully enclosed.

Comment: Re:Maybe because security people are dicks? (Score 1) 150

by c (#49734495) Attached to: Survey: 2/3 of Public Sector Workers Wouldn't Report a Security Breach

Security's motto: We break stuff, put ALL the burden on the users, walk away AND we get paid for it!

This is pretty much what happens when "Security" is a separate business group. Security-oriented admin groups can usually manage to balance security versus operational requirements, but if your only job is making things more secure and there's zero penalty for making things non-functional, well... honestly, I'd probably do the same thing.

Comment: Sounds great! (Score 1) 91

by c (#49734445) Attached to: Tweets To Appear In Google Search Results

At least, assuming these tweets are ranked appropriately.

Down near the bottom, with the ad spammers.

But really... what the fuck, Google? The most "useful" kinds of tweets are the ones who reference the authoritative material that you'd want to see instead of any tweet about it. As a means to add to the page rank of good (i.e. referenced) pages tweets might be valuable, but otherwise twitter activity is pretty much the definition of irrelevant.

Comment: Re:New Jersey and Other Fictions... (Score 1) 615

by cpt kangarooski (#49707607) Attached to: The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks

These people are increasingly rare, given that more gas stations lack "full-service" pumps.

Well, chalk one up for electrics, I guess.

Tesla's working on automated full-service battery swapping stations. And apparently also on charging cords that can plug themselves in:


Robots of that sort already exist, so you can see the sort of thing he's probably referring to:


Comment: Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives (Score 1) 615

by cpt kangarooski (#49707571) Attached to: The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks

Local delivery (Fed Ex, UPS etc) will still have an operator (or perhaps two or more) that can jump out with the package while the delivery truck drives around the block

That's what the Amazon drones are for. The truck just has to cruise through the neighborhood. Meanwhile, small drone aircraft that it carries will work to carry packages out of the truck and to front doors. A human will still be needed for heavy or bulky packages, or for deliveries that have to be brought inside or where there's no convenient place for the drone to land to deposit them, but those packages and destinations can be separated from the others at the local depot, and all put on a smaller number of trucks, therefore needing a smaller number of humans. You won't need a human for every truck if you work out the routes each day based on the nature of the packages you've got and where you're taking them.

Comment: Re:it's a C idiom (Score 1) 264

by c (#49643425) Attached to: C Code On GitHub Has the Most "Ugly Hacks"

I'm not sure I'm following. If we're non-POSIX, then what read(2) are we talking about? Also, that sizeof is by definition 1

POSIX defines sizeof(char)==1. But C itself doesn't necessarily *require* sizeof(char)==1, just that char is the smallest non-bitfield type. Theoretically, sizeof(char)==4 could be legit on some architectures. In practice, I doubt there's a non-trivial C program on the planet that would function on such a platform, but it's there.

The *point* of this being that the bug wasn't specifically that sizeof(char)==2, but that sizeof(char) was apparently variable within one trivial function in thousands of lines of code, and that throwing a trivial assertion in front of it was enough to change the value back to what it was supposed to be.

If a no-op changes behavior of your program, then yes, it's either a compiler bug

Exactly. In this case, it was the optimizer losing its shit. I wouldn't try to diff optimized and non-optimized ASM output from the compiler these days, but at the time it wasn't too horrible.

If that was indeed mid-late 90's MSVC++, then that makes it slightly easier to believe, yes ;)

It was still better than g++ on the DEC Alpha around that same time, but that's setting the bar pretty low.

Hackers are just a migratory lifeform with a tropism for computers.