Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:11 rear enders (Score 1) 549 549

It's probably worth noting that both times were in automatics. The scenario was: lift foot off brake ready to accelerate, car starts to creep forward, maneuver aborted due to cross traffic (possibly over-cautious), hit brakes...

In a manual car, the car would not even be moving unless the decision had been made to complete the pull-out.

Right turn on red is actually pretty nice though not appropriate in all situations.

Comment Re:Holy Shit, Dude!! (Score 1) 549 549

I've got too thick a skin to worry about that. But my point is not that the person in front bears any fault, my point is that there is more to the story than just assigning fault.

Can you understand that? Do I need to make it simpler? Do you realize that you and the other poster went off on a rant about something that I was not saying in the least? Even my daughter understood when she was four that it's no good assigning fault to someone else when you're lying in a pedestrian crossing bleeding out because you had right of way over that truck that was barreling down the highway towards the red light at 60mph.

Comment Re:Something wrong there (Score 4, Insightful) 549 549

It's possible that the Google car is not giving out "body language" that telegraphs behavior before it happens. If you are about to slow down, you might move your head to check your mirrors, let off the gas a little bit, possibly maneuver in the lane, little things that humans could detect subconsciously. If the Google car just enters a slowing-down event, it might be undetectable.

I know as a motorcycle rider, I've suspected someone was about to do something stupid just before they did and it's saved me a few times.

Comment Re:11 rear enders (Score 1) 549 549

It may not actually be the fault of the Google car per se but I think it definitely is worth considering that it might be driving in a way that would increase the number of accidents around it. I've certainly seen human drivers do so.

Heck, I have possibly even done so myself. Twice, I have been at a red light turning right, started to go and stopped, (having seen vehicles coming too quickly for me to pull out safely) and been rear ended by people who thought I was going. Clearly I was not at fault but that start-stop action was definitely a factor. Some people also drive in a way that might encourage others to take risky actions in order to get around them (driving below the speed limit, slowing down to read the street names at every intersection etc).

It's not as simple as assigning fault.

Comment Re:DoB, SSN & Filing Status?? (Score 1) 85 85

This is largely because the government should not be getting into all this stuff anyway. Therefore you get the tension between what they need to do what they're doing and what they shouldn't be needing to ask for in the first place, leading to these half-arsed compromises.

Comment Re:DoB, SSN & Filing Status?? (Score 1) 85 85

Q21: When did Social Security cards bear the legend "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"?

A: The first Social Security cards were issued starting in 1936, they did not have this legend. Beginning with the sixth design version of the card, issued starting in 1946, SSA added a legend to the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." This legend was removed as part of the design changes for the 18th version of the card, issued beginning in 1972. The legend has not been on any new cards issued since 1972.

Feeling old?

Real programmers don't bring brown-bag lunches. If the vending machine doesn't sell it, they don't eat it. Vending machines don't sell quiche.