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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:RISK vs CHANCE (Score 1) 182

Look at it this way. You can compare the odds of God acting to the odds of finding an exception to the Law of Conservation of Energy. Just because no one has ever observed a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy, doesn't mean that the entire thing couldn't be totally invalid tomorrow, or that tomorrow God comes out of hiding.

Difference is, we've been looking for a violation of the Law of Conversation of Energy for far far less time than we've been looking for God, so we're statistically more likely to find that.

Comment Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories (Score 1) 448

Intent is the big deal, because there's a human intelligence creating and driving it, not random circumstance, and that intent is to cause and increase the pain, suffering, and death as much as possible. [...] If the system simply said, "Big deal, more people die in car accidents" and did nothing, there'd be more terrorist attacks and deaths,

OK then, what's the intent of spending mountains of money fighting terrorism, when that same money would save more lives if spent fighting cardiovascular problems, diabetes, and cancer? Imagine if the entire Iraq/Afghanistan war budget, and TSA budget, had been spent on healthcare/research instead.

Remember, you're just as dead if you died from a heart attack as from a terrorist. (bonus points if the heart attack is attributable to having been unnecessarily afraid of terrorists, or if you got cancer from a TSA scanner).

Comment Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories (Score 5, Insightful) 448

I read stuff like this on real news sites.

Not really. The only reason "terrorism" is relevant here at all, is that Americans are get so scared they shit themselves all over the Constitution whenever terrorism is mentioned. Unless your so-called news site basically says, "some insignificant statistic happened, so get ready to give up more freedoms and/or expect people to start discussing terrorism again", then it's not a real news site.

Wake me up when terrorists kill more people than peanuts. People aren't afraid of dangerous things like cars, but shit themselves over terrists.

Comment Only needs one person to accomplish (Score 2) 153

It would only really require one or two people to pull this off. All the necessary components are innocent enough. (Also, the idiot who wrote the article is full of bull about "requiring additional hardware".) Components (with innocent purpose):
* Hardware necessary to detect testing mode: all cars have a speedometer
* Software to detect testing mode: reasonable to use for internal tests, and on production for traction control
* Hardware to allow software control of EGR: necessary for efficiency
* Software to adjust NOx/performance/efficiency levels: legitimate to have various modes, or for use in areas with different pollution laws

It would be trivial for one guy to write the code to have low NOx during testing, and high efficiency/performance otherwise. However, half the company would have to know they were cheating.

When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal