Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

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:Insurance (Score 1) 219

by jader3rd (#49186241) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

If two self-driving cars are involved in a collision, who is responsible for the damages?

If the cars are owned by individuals and not a taxi service, it'll probably be related to if they've kept the software up to date. If one person's car is up to date with the latest patches, and the other person hasn't updated in the last three years, and their car has had an update which would have avoided the accident, the person who didn't maintain their vehicles software will be liable.

Comment: Re:Should all car drivers be able to ride a horse? (Score 1) 219

by jader3rd (#49186233) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

The cost for the array of sensors is far from minimal at the moment. Maintenance on them will add up too, you have new complicated pricey parts. The majority of people are probably driving cars worth $5K or less. Cheap low maintenance human-driven vehicles will be the norm for the foreseeable future, outside of wealthy suburbs.

Driverless cars will probably be introduced as a taxi like service. That way the cost will be spread out over a large customer base. At some point most young couples will decide not to get a second car because the autonomous service will take one of the spouses to work and back. Then with a generation or two of families having only one vehicle, new young couples will start by passing owning a car in the first place. Or at that point, they will have become economical enough, the one car the family does own will be autonomous.

Comment: Re:Responsibility belongs to the driver . . . (Score 1) 219

by jader3rd (#49186215) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

But if the car comes across something it can't handle, the car owner would be in no condition to take over control.

At that point the car says "Sir, would you mind if I hand control over to a licensed remote driver? An inebriated silence will be allowed as acceptance". Then the car will do the equivalent of todays On-Star system, and have a professional take over.

Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 219

by jader3rd (#49186203) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

How many will risk being stranded if automated systems begin shutting down because they are confused and overwhelmed by bad weather, outdated maps, or other unforeseen circumstances?

Probably the same number who are willing to try horseless carriages that might get overwhelmed by bad weather, outdated maps, or other unforeseen circumstances.

Comment: Re:As long as it is not an official power rangers (Score 1) 251

by jader3rd (#49173647) Attached to: Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use

They should take the free publicity and do something cool with a brand they aren't doing much with.

Are you sure they're not doing much with it? I haven't kept track, but it seems like there's a new Power Rangers series every year. I'm pretty sure they're still milking it.

Comment: Because it's so different (Score 1) 251

by jader3rd (#49173529) Attached to: Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use

but the real absurdity runs in the opposite direction -- how did Vimeo's staff give an award to the film that they should have known was a knockoff?

Probably because it's so different, it doesn't feel like anything even semi-official. At it's core, the idea behind copyright is that if a consumer is faced with a choice between content from the creator, or some knock off content from somebody who's standing on the shoulders of the creator, and to consumer picks the knock off, it hurts the original creator. This 'movie' is short enough, and despairingly different enough from the original, anyone looking to spend money on Power Rangers style entertainment, is not going to choose consuming this short film.

Comment: Re:Of Two Minds on This (Score 1) 230

I don't know what's Orwellian about it, but that's the general idea. A private company can only charge customers, a government can charge/tax everyone. So certain projects (ie ones that require infrastructure) may be to expensive for a private company to undertake if they get too few customers. But a group of citizens can get together and say "It would benefit the whole town if everyone/most had blah (water, electricity, sewage, postal service, internet, etc)". So once a certain majority agrees, a law is passed, and they can spread the cost out over everyone. So a well run government operation will be able to undercut a private business every time.

The issue is how well run the government can do things. With no competition there's room for pork, waste, etc. That why it's important to still allow private companies to compete in certain areas, and for there to be citizen oversight over others. For example, if your water bill gets too high you start throwing out the current bureaucrats to bring it back under control. My Dad's actually involved in doing that right now in his city.

Comment: Re: Authority (Score 3, Interesting) 230

the question that remains is whether Congress can delegate their lawmaking authority to some government bureaucracy. The correct answer to that question is probably no.

If that were true the Treasury (part of the Executive branch) wouldn't be able to issue debt. Up until WWI Congress decided how much debt to issue. During WWI a lot of expenses started adding up (tanks, planes, etc) and Congress found debating how sell bonds to be boring. So they gave that responsibility over to the Treasury and said "If we've made it part of a law and it requires money, issue as much debt as needed to pay for it". Later, they imposed a "debt limit", but it's odd to impose the debt limit on the Treasury given the fact that the Treasury is only finding ways to fill in the funding gaps laid out by Congresses budget.

Comment: Re:fees (Score 5, Interesting) 389

by jader3rd (#49151127) Attached to: Verizon Posts Message In Morse Code To Mock FCC's Net Neutrality Ruling

It has nothing to do with capitalism. It has everything to do with unregulated corporate greed. They are NOT the same things. The same kind of greed was seen very prominently in countries that called themselves Socialist and even Communist. So don't blame "capitalism" for it. It's cronyism, plain and simple.

That's actually everything to do with capitalism.

Your ignorance of history and economic systems is ... overwhelming.

If we're going to define capitalism as what was laid out by Adam Smith in On the Wealth of Nations (generally considered to be the founding document of capitalism), it certainly didn't praise corporate greed. Adam Smith takes a lot of time to bash on corporations, and how they need to be regulated. Not just that they need to be regulated, but exactly the manner in which they need to be.

There are three kinds of people: men, women, and unix.