Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 139

government wealth redistribution

This alone makes you socialist/communist.

As a Libertarian, I oppose the Min Wage. As a realist, I know you cannot repeal it. But as jobs disappear because Robots take over for humans ( ) Min wage will become a non-issue.

The problem is, Government shouldn't pick winners and losers in the marketplace. If something is "too big to fail" it is too big. Period.

Comment Re:So what should we do? (Score 1) 492

I don't find three pedals confusing either, and if I had a lift or even a slab I would probably drop the money to put a six speed into my Audi in lieu of the five speed slushbox when I liquidate my 300SD. I'm not doing that job in the dirt. The point remains, though; there was no good reason for them not to use pushbuttons.

Also, I'd still rather have a DCT than any of this stuff, and they don't work without computer control either

Comment Re: Ok. (Score 1) 613

The reason most people use ad blockers is to keep their browsers actually running in a good manner. With HTML5/Javascript framework advertising clients, the issue of the browser eating more and more clock cycles until the operating sytem locks up has just gotten worse. It's more noticeable on lower powered machines like cell phones and tablets, but I even see it on Core I5 machines, especially if there isn't enough memory.

This idea that you can push all the processing to the client and not pre-render anything for your advert is rediculous.

Comment Re:green? (Score 1) 192

But things like coal, oil, natural gas come from underground.

Most mining is now strip mining, so anything that has to be mined automatically loses. All three of these are also sequestered carbon; when we produce them, and then burn them, we cause ourselves problems related to CO2 release. Natural Gas production is now predicated upon fracking (we otherwise have already hit peak natgas, in terms of just getting it out of the ground as opposed to making it) which has its own severe problems, not least being based on injecting refinery wastes into the ground instead of disposing of them properly. Oil spills are an ongoing rather than regular occurrence; there is basically no time that there is not a serious oil spill going on somewhere in the world. Burning coal puts nuclear material into the atmosphere, including tons of fissile uranium per year.

The environmental cost of solar, especially non-PV systems or modern PV systems which use ever-vanishing quantities of rare earths or even organic materials, is minuscule compared to any fossil fuel.

Comment Re:6178 acres? (Score 1) 192

Wow, you need to disturb a lot of habitat to make that happen. Even in the desert.

The sand fleas will be crushed. No, literally, they will be crushed. Seriously, desert is notable for hosting minimal quantities of biomass. Sure, we could wipe out some inconsequential species. That would even be sad. But I think most of us would trade some obscure lizards and bugs for clean power... which has serious positive ramifications for protecting habitat for many more species.

Ideally we'd mandate if not PV installs then at least proper solar siting for all new construction worldwide, which would lend itself to more distributed solar projects. It's only maybe 15% of the roofs even in California for example which are suitable sites for solar panels because of all the various factors involved. Then there would be less demand for centralized solar. We need more distributed generation anyway.

Comment Re:a way to do this "safely" (Score 1) 179

Phase 1: limit AI driven cars to say 35mph or under "network" control (in either case Hazard Lights GO ON)

No. You are going to need a new signal. Hazard lights already have a meaning, and that meaning is "I am stopped or otherwise below the minimum speed for this roadway which I am in, and thus obstructing it — go around me when/if it is safe".

Comment Re:Good ... (Score 1) 179

Self-driving-ish cars? Autonom-ish cars? It just seems like everybody is pretending this is a solved issue, and I don't believe it is.

It isn't, but the cars aren't ready to drive themselves 100% of the time anyway. They need a lot more data. So they're going to put the cars with the technology out there, and start collecting it. Then they'll determine how it's going to work as they go along... and by "they" I mean automakers and regulators alike.

Comment Re:Good ... (Score 1) 179

I'm suggesting if Google is driving, and the passengers are passengers, then why the hell would anybody pay for things like liability insurance for an AI?

You are going to need basic liability insurance no matter what, but it should be a lot cheaper in a car that you're not allowed to drive, because you won't be able to cause an accident.

Could it be because it's still going to have a "fuck it, you drive" mode which passes responsibility to the human so Google can claim they're not responsible?

For the foreseeable future, cars are going to have a human-driven mode, so you're going to need liability insurance for that. If you're willing to let your insurer into your car's data, perhaps they will give you a discount if you don't actually use it.

A self driving car becomes useful when I can have no controls, and be asleep in the back. I don't pay liability insurance on a bus, train or taxi ... why the hell would I pay it when something created by Google is in charge of driving it?

Mechanical failure. Again, your rates should go down if you're not driving, but there will still be opportunities for failure.

Comment Re:Insanity (Score 1) 582

No. By the time I'm relying on the white line to see my lane, I'm already driving at half-speed.

And the lines are absolutely invaluable to people with certain visual issues, like poor ability to see color contrast (like along the edge of the road) or less than stellar night vision. Having the line means people with imperfect depth perception or imperfect space relations don't have to GUESS where they should be on the road. It prevents them from becoming a hazard to others when they can't decide where their space begins and ends.

(Cue the elitists who'll say such people shouldn't drive in the first place.)

Someone mentions driving on snowy roads where you can't see the lines anyway as evidence that they're not needed. This sorta neglects to notice that on such roads, unless there's an obvious obstacle, people tend to drive right down the middle, as if it's a one-lane road. I've seen this produce collisions (even at very low speeds) at blind corners.

Another issue that comes to mind is legal liability. If a vehicle takes its half outta the middle, hey, there's no lines saying they can't. So now who's at fault when you have a head-on or drive off the road because two drivers disagree (and YOU might be the wrong one here) on what constitutes their fair "half" of the road? "I thought that WAS half the road" will become the go-to legal escape.

Slashdot Top Deals

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.