Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:And So It Begins... (Score 1) 219

Sadly, you're probably right.

But you put the blame in the wrong place. Don't blame politicians for not spending on infrastructure. Blame you and me, the voters. We seem to only vote for people who claim that they will lower taxes, and are then amazed when there is no money for infrastructure maintenance much less improvement.

Comment Re:Good ... (Score 1) 219

liability insurance for a autonomous object then the rationale like car insurance must be such the vehicles are so likely to be in an accident that I need a method of paying off other individuals before I can recoup my losses from google

Really? I pay homeowners insurance even though 95% of the possible claims would be caused by weather, or natural disasters, or poor wiring done by an electrician, or poor wiring in a device I didn't manufacture. How is self-driving car insurance any different?

So the insurance is paid for by the City who operates the bus and not the passengers.

No, the insurance is paid by you via your fare. In the same way that if you own a house, you pay the property tax directly. If you rent an apartment, you pay the property tax via your rent. If you eat at a restaurant or shop at a store, some tiny part of your bill pays for the insurance and property tax of the restaurant.

The benefit of self-driving cars is that the insurance is likely to be far, far lower than human insurance. But we'll see; insurance companies are quite good at determining risks, so in a few years we'll see how the insurances compare.

Comment Re:Good ... (Score 1) 219

Otherwise I'll do the driving, since I am also better than an average human as well.

See also the Dunning–Kruger effect.

But sure, drive yourself. No problem. My self-driving car will recognize the cars driven by unsafe humans and avoid them, so you'll still be much safer (since you'll only be in danger from other idiot humans). Seems like a loss for natural selection but otherwise a win for everyone.

Comment Re:So how much were they bribed? (Score 2) 219

Seriously... I can't think of any way shape or form that the "AI" behind a "self-driving car" is anywhere near ready for full legal responsibility for this.

An AI cannot have legal liability; it is a machine. Depending on how this shakes out, either the auto seller (Google, Toyota) or the auto owner will provide insurance and have legal liability.

And since human drivers are almost universally incompetent, as long as the AI driver is more competent than the average human (a low bar), the insurance will be cheaper than insurance for human drivers.

Comment Re: Just like HDMI cables (Score 2) 206

Also, if anyone thinks that idiot manufacturers (trying to save a few pennies) will screw up a simple resistor but will not screw up a chip, then I'm not sure what to say. A main reason we need smarts in the cables are because cheap chargers are not made with enough safety features or predate high-charge devices.

Comment Re:What country do you live in? (Score 1) 165

It is kind of like ObamaCare - it is for your ow good. So give us your money we will spend them for you.

Like Obamacare? So, you mean "cheaper than expected and working better than expected"? Fantastic! Sign me up.

I have a brother-in-law who has finally been able to get treatment for his high blood pressure because of the ACA. On the other hand, has there been a widely-publicized "Obamacare horror story" which has not been proven to be false? I assume there are a few actual horror stories; there always are in any complex system. But the fact that opponents have only picked fake horror stories says something important.

Getting back to the subject: I will be very happy to prevent unions from participating in government as soon as companies have the same restrictions. Here in the USA, we've got lots of corporate influence and not much union influence, and that is working... poorly.

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 3, Insightful) 165

If most people could save $0.50 buying their toilet paper from known child rapists, they would.

Sociopaths usually assume that most other people are also sociopaths. This says you're wrong.

Indeed. I choose to shop at Costco rather than Sam's Club, even though Sam's Club locations are much more convenient and slightly cheaper, because Costco treats their employees well and Sam's Club doesn't. I want to live in a world where my neighbors are well paid and well treated, not one where they are poor and needy. I can't change the whole world, but I can and do vote with my wallet.

Comment Re:What country do you live in? (Score 4, Informative) 165

I can do that. You can probably do that. Someone without a good skillset, who went to a high school where less than half the kids graduated, cannot do that. Well, they can go to lots of employers but all the employers have the same crappy policies.

Last time we had lots of employers all treating they employees like disposable crap, we got unions. Think about that: there are many, many problems with unions, and most people (even their members) hate them. But they were considered a far lesser evil than the employers of the time. And unless the government gets involved and starts making companies behave, we're heading back towards unions.

So pick your poison: strong unions or strong government regulations. Because we're trying strong companies now, and they've proving to be a very bad choice for all but the most skilled.

Comment Re:Why should? (Score 1) 397

You don't really seem to know much about modern self-driving cars.

Google already has self-driving cars driving on roads around California and Texas. Sure, both states seem rather unreal to me at times, but I'm pretty sure they count as real-world.

You don't need to deal with ANY possible situation. If a rhinoceros comes running down the road I'm driving on, I don't need to know how to deal with it; I'll just slow down, pull to the side or evade the animal, and stare at it in confusion. A self-driving car just needs to follow similar rules of thumb; "slow down, get out of the path of traffic, call for help".

The cars are not perfect; they need more practice in rain. Snow and ice challenge most humans, so that will take a bit. But they are pretty good with guys with flags and hand gestures. Unmapped signs are fine; do you really think they have a trusted list of all signs? No, that's why they have cameras. Don't need perfect maps, though better maps are always a plus. As I said, you don't seem to know much about the technology, and I encourage you to learn more about it before loudly asserting things which are untrue.

They already drive better than humans (though in a slightly more narrow set of circumstances); that's a really easy bar to beat because humans are terrible drivers.

Comment Re:We have the capability without high tech gadget (Score 1) 712

I agree with you; it's our culture that needs to improve. We need to lose the "Clint Eastwood" mentality of "I can fix this by killing the bad guys"; in real life, that trick never works. For one thing, we're really bad at figuring out who the bad guy is. Also, bad guys deserve a trial not a summary execution.

But I think it's more complex than you seem to imply. Southern towns in the mid-1900s were very friendly, peaceful places full of gentle people who loved their families... until someone dark-skinned was accused of a crime. Then the ropes were thrown over a tree limb.

And today, the police officer who puts his live on the line to protect kids from a shooter may be the same one who shoots an unarmed dark-skinned suspect. We're all full of prejudices which we cannot see and hotly deny. Europe is much less violent than the US, except that recently the immigration issues are causing peaceful people who love their families to commit violence (often because they somehow think this protects their families).

I don't know the perfect solution, but "more guns" doesn't seem to be it. "Fewer guns" seems to help but is not enough on its own.

Comment Re:Well.... (Score 2) 712

http://www.usatoday.com/story/... :

Although traffic-related incidents have consistently been among the leading causes of officer deaths, law enforcement seat-belt compliance has hovered around 50%. The compliance rate among the general public has been estimated at 86%,

Hardly a research paper, and "most police officers" was an exaggeration, but it seems that the argument is:
    * Many police care so much about their safety that they should be (are) excused for using lethal force at the least sign or impression of danger.
    * Many police care so little about the (admittedly quite low) number of police shootings and traffic deaths that they choose to not wear vests and seat belts.

Both of these may be true; people are terribly illogical when it comes to risk assessment. But yes, it's amazing the shit that people toss out; glad I could inform you of the truth.

Comment Re:Well.... (Score 2) 712

Hardly seems reasonable to mention exaggeration over the number of people killed by police without also mentioning the exaggerations on the other side.

I have not heard of anyone saying "the police are killing everyone!" except for law-enforcement fans setting up hyperbolic straw-men, but there is concern over the numbers. It's hard to say how much validity there is these concerns, since many police departments and states decline to release consistent (or any) numbers on people killed by police; I suspect that accurate numbers could help put the incidents we see in the news into context. But the numbers of police killed are notably more accurate, notably dropping, and notably exaggerated as the linked article explains.

Comment Re:Would No Lethal Force Work? (Score 1) 712

First you said "only the threat of death is enough to make them take pause", then you said "A person committing a crime is having a fit of selfishness, and often can't even see a few minutes into their own future". So are criminals thinking about the future (meaning we absolutely need guns to as a deterrence) or are they blinded by rage and selfishness (meaning we absolutely need guns to protect the officers)? In either case, less-armed police in other parts of the world much be killed at much higher rates than in the US.

Honestly, the root problem is not that police should be allowed to use lethal force to protect themselves; they can and they do. The problem is that they use both lethal and non-lethal force when they are not protecting themselves, and are almost never punished for this. They taze people who are lying on the ground, they shoot unarmed people, they choke people on the street, etc. Not all police, but since they are rarely punished, it doesn't take that many bad apples to taint the whole barrel.

When someone shoots a cop, they are taken down immediately (usually with deadly force) and even if they escape there is a huge manhunt to get them. If a cop shoots someone, well, if there is enough media then there might be an "investigation" but the "investigators" always decide that killing the unarmed african-american was completely reasonable. You cannot equate those. I don't demand complete parity; being a law officer is a dangerous job and they need to have some latitude. But they need some backpressure, not fawning defenders and sham investigations.

Slashdot Top Deals

If a subordinate asks you a pertinent question, look at him as if he had lost his senses. When he looks down, paraphrase the question back at him.

Working...