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


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Link to the announcement (Score 4, Informative) 176

Google announced the decision in an update at the bottom of I'm happy they did: certification authorities need to understand that there are consequences to gross negligence or worse.

Comment Don't buy a driverless car: just install the app (Score 2) 386

Another point that lots of people, especially in the US, seem to miss is that these cars are (mostly) not meant to be sold. The main use case is that people will just call one when needed. If done on a large scale there will be a much larger number of cars available than current taxis, so one will almost always be nearby.

Transportation is not a product, it's a service.

Much cheaper and requires far less parking space. Also you don't need to bother ever again with repairs and model upgrades. Remember: private cars spend >90% of their time parked. Waste of time and space.

No wonder Google is making its own cars. Conventional car makers are probably scared shitless of this future and would do anything to keep the public in the old world.

Comment Re:Can you say... (Score 3, Insightful) 266

yes, requiring a company WHO IS IN THE HEALTH-CARE BUSINESS to continue saving lives and not taking profits as the first thing.

But the whole reason why they are required to do so is because there are other companies producing the same drug. If this wasn't the case nobody would have cared which of the two versions they produced.

It's fixing a stupid situation with even more stupidity rather than attacking the root causes: patents and excessive effect of advertising on doctors' decisions.

Comment Articles about Catholicism are even worse (Score -1, Flamebait) 268

Especially in the Italian Wikipedia pretty much any article about the catholic church is written from the point of view of someone that believes in that religion. Edits that try to follow the NPOV (neutral point of view) rule are immediately reverted, any negative information, even when well-referenced, is deleted or hidden in a brief mention inside a long paragraph at the end of an article.

Unfortunately the people that keep these articles in such bad state seem to have far more free time than the volunteers that want to improve them following the rules, so wikipedia's gradual improvement model fails for these articles about religion.

How many Bavarian Illuminati does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Three: one to screw it in, and one to confuse the issue.