Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:This guy should be a lawyer (Score 1) 191

I think he refers to an old philosophical question.
The classic example is 'you're conducting a train. You come around a bend, and there's a track split. One track A is, say, a person. On track B is, say, two people. You don't have time to brake. All you can do is pick which track you take. Which one do you take?

What if Track B has five people? One child? A world-class doctor who saves lives? A scumbag criminal? Your wife?

So, say you're in a self-driving car. The car wants to make a left turn across traffic at a four-way intersection. So it advances into the intersection, stops to wait for a break in oncoming traffic, and waits.

Sensors notice a semi coming up behind you, and not stopping. In front of you is an old person crossing the road. To your right is a kid on a bicycle. To your left is a stead stream of through traffic. Where do you go?

Comment Re:What about the rights of those injured by firea (Score 0) 1163

If a wizard suddenly made it impossible for guns to exist in America; they could not pass across any border, the ones inside the country simply turned into nothingness, do you think the rates of assault and murder would instantly go down? Or do you think they'd stay the same, just with different methods?

Say, for example, that ten people are killed per year; five by gun, two by knife, two by baseball bat, and one by strangulation. On Dec 31st, the wizard casts his spell.

What do you think the stats will be one year later? Two by knife, two by baseball bat, and one by strangulation? I don't. I think they'd turn to four by knife, four by baseball bat, and two by strangulation.

Guns are a symptom, not a cause. Unless the root causes in American society are addressed, people will continue to die. The manner of their murder shouldn't even be a point of discussion.

Comment This is true. (Score 1) 142

Think about the technology a scientist from a bare fifty years ago, or even thirty, would need to invent, just to be able to BEGIN to work on a sample of wifi communications, or a Blu-ray.

They have to invent the equipment to listen to it, decrypt it, figure out the file formats, and so on. And these technologies are all designed specifically to prevent that.

Comment Re: Or they could (Score 1) 143

You assume that a) you'll always be in a situation where you can download things instantly and on demand, and b) that you can decide ahead of time, with perfect accuracy, what you'll need and when.

For example: I bought, and use, the TomTom app for my iPhone, rather than the built-in maps app. One big reason? It's all there, predownloaded. Sure, I'll probably never need, say, the California map. on the other hand, I am safe and secure in the knowledge that, anywhere in North America, I have a reasonably up-to-date and accurate map available to me. I never have to worry about being in the middle of nowhere with crap cellular data, and being unable to load a map.

Comment I'm confused. (Score 1) 258

John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized when he forcefully disagreed with the president's authorization

Does this mean 'while he happened to be in hospital for something or other, Ashcroft forcefully disagreed with the President's authorization...'

Or does it mean how it reads? "Due to disagreeing forcefully with the President, Ashcroft was hospitalized....

In Nature there are neither rewards nor punishments, there are consequences. -- R.G. Ingersoll