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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: APorsche Self-Drive? (Score 1) 207

A performance car. One that could be driven to it's limits by a computer. Limits far beyond human capabilities. THAT is the self driving car I want.

What? You would want a performance car, just to be a passenger in it? I guess it might be like a roller coaster or something, but I'd still rather drive it than ride in it.

Comment Re:APorsche Self-Drive? (Score 1) 207

Why would any poor benighted fool pay money for a Porsche that didn't need to be driven? The entire point of their ridiculously inflated price tags is they're a joy to drive.

This was my immediate thought. Of course Porsche isn't interested in self-driving cars. The whole point of a Porsche is driving it. Though I cannot afford a Porsche, I drive fun, sporty cars and hence have no interest in a self-driving car either.

Comment Re:legalism is a crap philosophy. (Score 1) 555

Police are not enforcing laws because they are being assaulted by the media and obnoxious part of the public. Why do your job when you're going to get prosecuted?

Am I to understand that police must commit crimes in their regular course of duty? If not, for what are they being prosecuted? Or are they being framed?

Comment Re:legalism is a crap philosophy. (Score 0) 555

All of this should make the UK a very dangerous place for pedestrians if speed limits alone were a primary driver of road fatalities, but they aren't. The UK averages 3.6 fatalities per billion kilometres driven. The US average (where limits are on average lower) is 7.1, which is effectively double. It seems much more likely that issues like car quality, driver certification, road design, car design etc are far more influential.

I would put money on the bold part. It is well known, even in America, that Americans can't drive for shit.

Comment Re:Main purpose... (Score 1) 133

From TFA:

According to Infowars, which was alerted to the zine's existence by AnonSec, the hackers' main purpose in hacking Nasa was to highlight the fact that the US government is using climate engineering methods such as cloud seeding and geo-engineering to manipulate the climate and cause more rain to fall in order to combat the effects of carbon emissions.

Well...? Are they?

Given that Cloud seeding has been around for 70 years why would it it be a surprise or controversial that NASA was experimenting with it?

Because it's not reported on the evening news. And everyone knows that if it's not on the evening news it didn't happen, and anyone who thinks it might have is a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

Comment Re:Main purpose... (Score 1) 133

"Well...? Are they?!"

No. But I've heard they might be selling US Govn branded tin foil hats to "special" people.

How do you know? Cloud seeding has been used for decades to modify the weather. I'm not saying it is or isn't happening. But you seem very quick to dismiss such an idea when it's really not far fetched at all.

Comment Re:ultimate intent was to replace U.S. workers (Score 1) 243

Wow, such an insightful statement contained in a mere simple declarative sentence that is nothing more than a mild ad hominem. It's not your fault, of course, that mods are stupid. Congratulations on your unearned moderation. Perhaps you could follow up your post with another that explains why AC's post is shockingly naive?

Sorry to hurt your feelings. It's quite simple, really. Management is often not very good at identifying the real performers and critical people in a department or team. They make decisions based on politics, who kisses the most ass and who is related to the boss's wife. Most people who have been around the block a few times have learned this. YMMV.

Comment Re:Snapshot from progressive (Score 1) 293

They already are trying it and finding less than 35% of people actually do it. This is up from 20% a few years ago, mainly due to massive advertising.

Assuming that 50% of people would benefit and the other 50% would lose, that means a solid 15% of the population is intentionally refusing to do it. Note, that number is probably higher, as most people think they are better drivers than they actually are. Let's say that 70% of the population THINKS they would benefit from it, which means that approximately 50% of their target market says "NO thanks, I like my privacy."

Well, that's encouraging at least. Maybe people will wake up and smell the surveillance.

Comment Re:ultimate intent was to replace U.S. workers (Score 1) 243

Disney could also have saved the money if they just didn't pay the workers at all, let the debt pile up and shot everyone trying to go to the courts to demand the money. Also this is deemed illegal for some reason.

But they're just trying to make a profit! Everyone knows anything is okay as long as you're trying to make a profit! Corporations are barely getting by as it is!

Slashdot Top Deals

Save a little money each month and at the end of the year you'll be surprised at how little you have. -- Ernest Haskins

Working...