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


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Copyright Law (Score 3, Insightful) 190 190

They must defend their trademark, and unfortunately, a lawsuit is the only way that the courts will recognize it. If they didn't, then anyone could use their non-response to the workbetter domain name as evidence to take their trademark.

It seems to me that if someone else was using the same name for 16 years prior to them and they claim that it's confusingly similar, they're effectively arguing that their trademark is invalid. Either they had a trademark and spent 16 years not enforcing it, or they failed to notice/mention prior art when they applied for it.

Comment: Re:I use bing because I don't want there to be one (Score 1) 133 133

Google became better than everyone else but that only happened AFTER they became popular. Altavista was initially as good or better.

From what I recall at the time, Google was initially a good quality engine, but Altavista had a huge lead in the size of their index. At the time, the size of your web page index was considered the biggest factor in search quality and ranking algorithms were... important, but considered secondary. Once Google's bots reached a critical mass, their algorithms won.

Comment: Re:Too many robocalls is why... (Score 1) 292 292

One reason why polling companies can't get usable info is that end users tend to be constantly barraged by robocalls,

I suspect that another reason, particularly when you're talking mobile, is that people who answer phones are far less likely to be sitting in a nice, comfortable chair in their living room ready to play 20 questions with whoever calls. If my parents call while I'm out walking the dog or something, I'll chat for a few minutes. If a pollster calls, they're out-of-luck.

The business model of polling is dependent on the willingness of strangers to let pollsters suck away a few minutes of their time for free, and people... just have too much other stuff happening.

Plus, if I'm talking with some Luddite on the phone, how can I check Facebook?

Comment: Re:Recordings, NOT music (Score 1) 66 66

And to suggest there's something otherwise undetectable or irreproducible in the air to distinguish between live music and a sufficiently good recording of that music played back to you...

I generally agree with your premise, but I'd have to say that it's rare that I get marijuana smoke wafting into my face while I'm sitting in my car listening to the radio. Granted, that's just anecdotal evidence, but...

Comment: Re:Large change with app permissions (Score 4, Informative) 83 83

Older applications not targeting M, will show permissions at install time and be granted by default, but the user will be able to revoke them, the platform will just give empty data or fail.

... and for those concerned about old apps failing under those conditions, Cyanogenmod's privacy guard has been doing this for quite some time and I've never heard of an app failing because of it. So it's possible to do it in a safe fashion. Whether that's how Google has actually implemented it remains to be seen.

Comment: Re:Defective (Score 1) 392 392

You said " someone needs to get cracking with that recall" and "It doesn't invalidate anything I wrote". So what precisely do you expect to be recalled due to this case of a person accelerating a car towards a group of people?

What I wrote stands for the situation described in the headline, summary and article. We'd obviously have to allow for physics (i.e. a car won't stop immediately at 70mph, and pedestrians wearing black radar-cloaking clothing at night are probably fucked), but otherwise get it right or get it off the road.

If the car wasn't actually operating autonomously, sure, what I wrote wouldn't be directly applicable to this situation. It's still the right way to handle the failure at it was described.

Comment: Re:Defective (Score 1) 392 392

That's only true if the capability is supposed to be used without supervision

Hm. Legit point, but then you have to ask whether the driver reasonably understands how the assistive technology works well enough to be able to supervise it, and also how easily they can stop the process if things go wrong (i.e. if the assistive technology requires the driver to take their limbs off the wheel, brakes and accelerator in order to work reliably, then it's pretty much guaranteed that they won't be able to act quickly enough to prevent an accident).

Comment: Re:Defective (Score 2) 392 392

It wasn't doing any autonomous movement so your premise is garbage and thus the rest of the post meaningless.

So, you're saying the "self-parking" bit the headline, summary and article describe is a complete red herring and had nothing to do with what the car was actually doing at the time?

  If you say so. It doesn't invalidate anything I wrote, it just might not be applicable to the situation that the headline, summary, and article all apparently failed to describe.

Comment: Defective (Score 0, Flamebait) 392 392

Any vehicle that is capable of any kind of autonomous movement that doesn't include pedestrian (or dog, or cat, or cyclist) detection is defective, period.

Any auto manufacturer that makes such a vehicle is 100% liable for any deaths or injuries that happen during said autonomous movement, period.

This isn't rocket science. This should be considered "seat belt saves lives" level of mandatory.

Now, someone needs to get cracking with that recall...

"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"