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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 199

by Jane Q. Public (#49186211) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

Let's be realistic. Self-driving cars are coming, but it is going to be a gradual transition. We've already seen the beginning of it with adaptive cruise control and self-parking. These features will continue to be refined while new ones are added, but we almost certainly face years (decades?) of gradual transition where our cars are some weird hodgepodge of self driving and user operated.

What's funny is this whole bit about "Where is my flying car?" when realistically it won't happen in any quantity until personal flying is almost completely automated. And I don't see that happening until we CAN, at least, make reliable automated cars.

The collision-avoidance problem, in some ways, is multiplied in the air. At least on the ground you have specific lanes with traffic control devices on them (lights, etc.).

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 199

by Jane Q. Public (#49186191) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

We don't deal with malfunctioning PEOPLE right now. Drunks, old people, and visual impaired people routinely climb behind the wheel everyday.

We don't deal with these problems, because we have bad laws. We have bad laws because politicians want to please lobbyists, and don't want to seem "soft" on crime or negligence. As a result, they pass laws that are too strict (DUI laws being a classic example: studies show the majority of people are NOT significantly impaired at 0.08%).

When unreasonable laws are passed which victimize pretty much "innocent" people, people lose respect for the law. Not just DUI but also (former or at least getting there) marijuana laws are great examples.

A self-driving system doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than what we have now when we scale it up.

Nope. Based on past advances in automobiles (ABS, airbags, power steering, computer throttle control), what will happen is that they will get released, and they will have some major screwups (or public perception of screwups anyway), and there will be a flurry of very heavy-duty lawsuits, and it will go away for a while. Then they'll come back in new and improved form. Then there will be a couple of more lawsuits, and some recalls. Sales will go down a bit and improve again. And it will gradually smooth out. Probably.

It's a bit like the "ringing" effect in some kinds of oscillators.

Comment: Re:It's to make the situation unworkable (Score 1) 243

by Jane Q. Public (#49186065) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills
To whoever marked my comment "troll":

A, B, and C are demonstrably true, in regard to this EPA rulemaking. I wasn't making a general statement about science.

EPA has consistently refused requests for the science and data behind this specific proposed rulemaking. That is a simple statement of fact. They claim there is some, but they won't show it.

And in just the last couple of days, EPA director Gina McCarthy, in testimony before Congress, demonstrated complete ignorance of even the most elementary knowledge of the science.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 243

by Jane Q. Public (#49186031) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Except that just today Scalia said that he doesn't have to consider congresses intent. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

He's wrong. Well, maybe, maybe not. Before anybody jumps on me for saying that: this is a legal principle that has been around for hundreds of years, and it's big part of what our whole legal system is based on.

Having said that, there IS one way, and only one, he could get around that: if the language of the law is clear and unambiguous, but Congress' intent was really something else, he probably has to rule on the language, not intent. The whole thing about "intent" is really for when the language of the law is ambiguous. Otherwise, why would you need to decide at all?

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 243

by Jane Q. Public (#49186009) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

So then what is the REAL dispute?

I don't know what the real dispute is. If you look around here you will find where I (later) posted the actual language of the relevant part of the bill. It is really pretty benign.

So what is the real issue here? Hard to say for sure, but I suspect that in part it's political.

Comment: Re:The Republicans are right (Score 1) 243

by Jane Q. Public (#49185983) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

I think we both agree that laws should be interpreted by what's considered reasonable. One problem is that the term "reasonable" is highly subjective.

No, it isn't. That is, it isn't something that "should be", it's the actual rule U.S. courts are bound to follow.

And elsewhere in this topic I've posted the actual language of the bill. These alarmist scenarios I have seen under this topic today have pretty much nothing to do with what the bill actually says. It's pretty darned "reasonable".

Comment: Re:It's to make the situation unworkable (Score 0) 243

by Jane Q. Public (#49185947) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

So why have this bill at all if it apparently changes nothing?

Where do you get the idea it changes nothing?

The current proposed rulemaking by the EPA, regarding CO2 emissions, is based on claimed "science" which ISN'T:

(A) identified AT ALL, much less specifically,

(B) "publicly available"

(C) available AT ALL for independent analysis, much less attempts to reproduce.

There is an actual reason the bill is titled "secret science". Because that's what EPA has been doing. And which does, in reality, have to stop. This bill is a direct reaction to EPA's unilateral actions which it is not able or willing to show are based on ANY actual science.

Comment: Let's Cut Through The Crap (Score 2, Informative) 243

by Jane Q. Public (#49185527) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills
Following is the relevant text of the actual bill:

=======
The Administrator shall not propose, finalize,
or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and
technical information relied on to support such covered ac-
tion is--
(A) specifically identified; and
(B) publicly available online in a manner that
is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
reproduction of research results.
(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as
requiring the public dissemination of information the dis-
closure of which is prohibited by law.

=======

It does not say personal or medical details. It says "sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction".

There is NOTHING sinister or unreasonable about this, except apparently in the imagination of alarmists.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 2, Informative) 243

by Jane Q. Public (#49185469) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

If its a reaching non-issue Why would the backers of the bill suggest study participants can sign waivers or opt out? Why aren't they just fixing the bill to exclude that interpretation?

That isn't in the bill itself. That's what one person said in response to Morganstein's stated opinion about the bill.

The law is not subject either to Morganstein's interpretation, or what a single Representative said about it. That idea has been solidly settled by the Supreme Court.

400-year-old Common Law, still in effect in this country, says that the meaning of the law rests on one thing: what a reasonable person would conclude Congress intended when passing the law. That's why, for example, they have debates about bills in Congress.

I hardly think a reasonable person would conclude that study subjects could not be anonymous. That's an extreme interpretation, not a reasonable one.

And also as I stated up above: that's why the Court challenge to Obamacare is not about "4 words". It's about what Congress intended when passing the bill. There is A LOT more evidence of Congress' actual intent than just those 4 words.

Comment: Re:The Republicans are right (Score 1, Informative) 243

by Jane Q. Public (#49185405) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Are you completely sure it's bullshit? Are you certain that no group impacted by a ruling will not use every possible way of undermining a negative result, valid or otherwise? Have you so little imagination?

Just look at the news today. Republicans are using four words in Obamacare to remove healthcare subsidies for 15 million people.

Yep. Bullshit, and bullshit.

The law must be enforced as read by reasonable people. That is a principle that goes back over 400 years in our legal history. No reasonable person would interpret the law that way. You can't read it any which bizarre way you see fit and say that's what the law means.

As for Obamacare, that's pure propaganda. It isn't "just 4 words". It's what Congress INTENDED in writing the law (just as I wrote above) which rules the day. And there are far, far more than 4 words about this in the Congressional record. It is very clear that the sponsors of the bill, and the debate surrounding the bill, intended any subsidies to be distributed ONLY via State exchanges.

If you read the debates and the emails, it's more like 4000 words, and they all say the same thing.

Comment: Re:Science vs Belief. (Score 1) 243

by Jane Q. Public (#49185365) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

You can read Morganstein's full letter here. [PDF alert]

I read Morganstein's letter. I will repeat what I wrote above: what the bill calls for to be publicly available is the science (i.e. the methodology) and the data. Personal details are not part of the data!!! Those are administrative details.

Just as Morganstein says, simply stripping names is not always enough to de-personalize data. But other methods are easily available.

This is a non-issue.

Comment: Re:Science vs Belief. (Score 2) 243

by Jane Q. Public (#49185343) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

To meet the strict letter of the law, the EPA must publish my SSN, DOB, and medical history, or they can't use the study.

Please show us exactly where it says this.

In a medical study, your SSN, DOB, and (non-anonymized) medical information are not data. In fact they are mostly irrelevant to the actual DATA of the study. Your approximate DOB may be important, and your medical history (and I very highly doubt they would require a complete medical history) might be relevant, but your name or SSN? Fucking hardly.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 3, Insightful) 243

by Jane Q. Public (#49185319) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

From the full article, the law as written, would bar the EPA from using any studies involving confidential patient information unless they were made public.

This is really reaching, by anybody's standards. I read the article, and Morganstein's letter.

The language of the bill calls for "publicly available science". It does not say that the subjects of any studies cannot be kept confidential. That's just malarkey.

As I wrote above: such studies or surveys, by their very nature, are presumed to be repeatable. The idea is that anyone else who conducted such a study, with a similar but separate sample of individuals, would come up with the same results. After all: that's what the studies are for.

To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't anywhere say that study subjects cannot be anonymous. The only thing that can't be anonymous or secret are the authors and their methodologies.

I don't mind honest debate about the issue, but the idea that the statement "publicly available" could reasonably apply to study subjects is a pretty long and thin stretch of the imagination.

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie

Working...