Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:we prefer Little Planet (Score 1) 321

Using the definition there are only 8 planets in the entire UNIVERSE as you can have no idea if a body has 'cleared it's orbit' so they by definition cannot be planets. Also Neptune hasn't cleared it's orbit, Pluto crosses it, and there are 100000 trojans on Jupiter's orbit. The definition is stupid and wrong. Pluto (and Eris, Ceres etc.) are planets, they are not Uberplanets but those are weird, rare, things, they are Unterplanets they are also weird but really not rare in the slightest.

Comment Re:Do you know (Score 1) 258

Yes but the driver is legally responsible, so whether they were properly in control or not is irrelevant, they are to blame so suffer the legal repercussions. Who would be legally responsible, if it's the operator, not sure they'd agree to be responsible for others code, not sure the programmers would take that legal responsibility, nor the manufacturers. So that leaves a gap, which MUST be filled, if the operator has no way of controlling the vehicle then they cannot be responsible so it must be the manufacturer or programmer, who become legally to blame for their work, sounds like they will spend a lot of their time in prison paying off huge debts. So small it may be, the legal system we live and work in likes to assign blame, so tell me who gets the blame with an automatic vehicle.

Comment Re:Do you know (Score 1) 258

Well I can see how it might take on in America, lots of driving there is dull as anything but I doubt it'll cope in european cities, oh how I'd love to see them cope with double mini roundabouts or the magic roundabout (an actual thing, in Swindon). What with all the roadworks and diversions and general fuckery which goes on over here. Also not mentioning that driverless trains, which while statistically safer have not caught on, often requiring a human operator/conductor to placate the people. Several of the tube lines in London are configured for automatic operation but this has been stopped for many years by safety concerns. So real world data says we don't trust automatic systems, I don't see why this wouldn't translate to cars.

Comment Re:Do you know (Score 1) 258

It wouldn't be a panacea, there would be a large time when the majority were normal cars and a few were self driving, there would be a few high profile accidents and the bottom would fall out the market. It really doesn't matter that it would be better if all cars had this because it wouldn't ever get that far. Deskilling is not the answer.

Comment Re:Do you know (Score 1) 258

Wow US roads are unsafe, there are like 3k in the UK. The economically sensible solution is socialised medicine yet this has not won out in the US, see how you spend 3x what we spend in the UK on health per capita but don't even cover everyone, so that's working well for you guys. People are dumb, and most law systems are predicated on blame, I'm not sure people will accept the logic that fewer people dying by robot hands is better than more by human hands. People don't accept that vaccines are good when all the data says they are so why do you think this would be different.

Comment Re:Do you know (Score 1) 258

You may be correct, but humans deal with death by humans pretty well, death by machine, autonomous machine, I'm not so sure we'll cope with this too well. One death and the media will be immediately on it's back. So it might be the future but don't expect the statistics to help you, we view non-typical events caused by outside actors with much higher relevance than everyday events caused by humans. So while we don't hear anything much about car crashes everyday in the media (unless they are big ones) we'll hear about every single autonomous car accident, no matter how small.

It's also easier to deal with to have a person to blame, so are we going to push this on the manufacturers or programmers or will we just have to accept that the machines chose your fate.

Also you are ignoring the moral decisions that the computer would have to make, whether to swerve and hit a single person over going straight and hitting a family type dilemmas.

Comment Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 886

Grammar is merely the tool which guides understanding. Language is about sharing information, so as long as the rules you are using are understood by all parties or that you can communicate the information so it is understood by others then it doesn't particularly matter too much. If you rely too much on book learning you miss the many interesting ways language is used which flies in the face of grammar, and history would be the poorer for that.

Comment Re: Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 886

Yes there is no reason for a government try to ensure that their people are not discriminated against for things which are legal by publicly operated businesses. Businesses are not people, so they do not get the rights of people. It's also a bizarre notion of most religions, as they don't tend to preach about division and discrimination, more along the lines of be nice to each other, so why this is being sold as a religions freedom I don't know.

Comment Re:Better Arguments Needed (Score 1) 1081

There is no perfect justice system, they are all flawed. Capital punishment is the ultimate in the state saying that it is right, do you trust your government that much? It also points to a larger problem where society seemingly wants to avoid the notion that criminals are people who should be treated with respect, because they are people.

If you look at reoffending rates in countries which believe in rehabilitation of prisoners rather than just punishment you'll find lots of data which suggests that treating people like people they will for the most part become like people (it's also cheaper). Yes there are some people who have done such horrid things that they should not be free, but that is punishment enough, the state should never assert that it has the right to kill it's own citizens.

Comment Re:So does this mean... (Score 1) 264

They make more sense than most, as you get a new version every 3 months or so, which either increases the minor version number or occasionally as in this case the major version number. Patches come with the 3rd number. This easily makes more sense than almost all others, Java's numbering scheme seems like it was designed by Kafka, who knows where nvidia generate their driver numbers from.

So you don't get particular milestones in minor or major version number changes, you get a degree of stability when new will exist and a reliable, predictable change. It makes more sense than the 2.6.xx scheme.

I took a fish head to the movies and I didn't have to pay. -- Fish Heads, Saturday Night Live, 1977.