Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:clueless author (Score 1) 126

Funny - I wouldn't call them "intersections", but I wouldn't call them "interchanges", either. To me, an "intersection" is where two non-freeways meet, and an interchange is where two *freeways* meet. I wouldn't call the intersection of a freeway and a non-freeway *either* of those terms (yes, it is certainly an intersection by the geometric definition, but that doesn't make it "an intersection" colloquially in the context of driving.) I would only ever call it an on-ramp, off-ramp, or if it's both next to each other, an on/off-ramp.

Comment Re:Of course self drive cars won't be legal (Score 1) 397

But of course, people driving themselves *never* act unpredictably, cause delays/accidents, ignore diversions/roadworks/cops, fail in adverse conditions, or kill people due to driving like idiots/jerks/spacing out/looking at their phones.

Why would you expect 100% perfection from self-driving cars, when humans are so monumentally far from it? Self-driving cars could do all the things you mentioned, and still be waaaaaaaaay safer than we are right now. (I'm not saying they're ready right this instant - that's why they're still completely in the test testing phase. I think 3 years to road-ready is a bit optimistic, but I think 10 years to road-ready would be a completely safe bet.)

Comment Re:False assumption (Score 1) 165

Screw that. It means *exactly* the same thing. If my hypothetical brother needs money, I'll give him money, cause he's my brother. If my brother takes that money and blows it, maybe I'll do it again, because he made a mistake and really needs the money. If my brother takes that money and blows it also, and keeps doing it, then screw him, he's on his own, you only get so many shots.

Family only goes so far - it's an immediately loyalty bonus, but still, loyalty has to go both ways, and it has to be maintained. I know some people are like, family above all else, even if they're wrong, even if they're taking advantage, and we call those people: suckers.

Comment Re:False assumption (Score 1) 165

What's wrong with using "loyalty" to a company? Loyalty just means the chance that you'll go out of your way to use them, vs. the chance you'll ditch them for a competitor at the first chance. There are plenty of companies I feel "loyal" to, because they've done things to make me value the services the provide, like provide consistently good customer service, or uniquely quality offerings, or the best prices, etc.

(The funny thing is, the companies always *asking* for our loyalty are never remotely the ones in that category, they're always ones offering completely generic service exactly the same as what their competitors provide.)

I have no problem with a company using "value" to describe the amount of money an employee makes for them, either - that *is* your value to the company. I have a problem with a company *incorrectly* calculating an employee's value, like "if you work in internal IT, you have negative value because you're earning a paycheck but not directly making the company money", or "your work can be directly boiled down to the amount of source code you provide", because those are *factually incorrect*. Value is often difficult to quantify, and depends wildly on the company and position, but that doesn't make it a flawed use of the word.

Comment Re:Ex Machina (Score 1) 536

> "the one branch of the industry that is likely to pass the Turing test first."

That much is certainly true - I have a great quote about it from a random forum years ago that I wrote down cause it was brilliant: "As a person's sexual desire approaches infinity, their ability to administer a turing test approaches 0." (This taken from a humor piece in which the author set up bots that were *obviously* built from ELIZA in various adult chatrooms, and watched just *tons* of people try to cyber with them. Kinda depressing, really.)

Comment Re:Quote (Score 1) 294

It's specifically those two movies. Ok, to be fair, the first Hunger Games movie was a pretty successful adaptation, it was only the others that sucked horribly (and also to be fair, the other two books were crap compared to the first, too, just not by as wide a margin.) Mainly it was a comment about WWZ, though, a truly breathtakingly beautiful book turned into a generic boring white-guy-saves-the-planet-from-zombies movie, that wouldn't even have hurt nearly so much if it hadn't been nominally based on the book it wasn't really based on.

Those "deep" movies are crap, and I care more about older movies than newer ones, as those are the ones I'm most likely to want to see on netflix, as I either forgot to see them in theaters, or completely missed they existed until years later. So I basically agree with you, you were overreacting to my admittedly-vague snark about WWZ sucking bigtime.

A rock store eventually closed down; they were taking too much for granite.