Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Liability (Score 1) 140

by sseaman (#36555012) Attached to: Volkswagon Shows Off Self-Driving Auto-Pilot For Cars

Good point. I think the state will have to take on the liability.

The future is not only self-driving cars, but roads composed of only light-weight self-driving cars. In such a system, where, in order to maximize efficiency, the safety offered by heavier vehicles has been compromised, it may make sense for a centralized agency to ultimately vouch for and maintain the vehicles on the road.

Furthermore, I see no reason why these vehicles can't be shared, like taxis. That eliminates the need to park, which eliminates parking lots. It eliminates public fueling stations, it eliminates the complexities of home charging (especially for urbanites). The vehicles are simply rented for a time, and returned to the herd. In dense urban areas, they can be sitting outside, waiting a hail. In suburban areas, maybe a text from your cell phone will bring one to your location in minutes. In very rural areas, perhaps people will be licensed to buy and keep their own vehicles.

Make no mistake, once the public is more aware of this technology people will demand it. Like cell phones and the Internet, I (and many automotive insiders) expect it to take over in a relatively short amount of time. Liability is perhaps the last major hurdle, and I see no other solution than this sort of transportation being taken over by the state, as has been other shared, ground transit.

Comment: Re:Missing the point (possibly willingly) (Score 1) 651

by sseaman (#36451534) Attached to: Obama: 'We Don't Have Enough Engineers'

The incentives are obvious--provide them more entry-level engineers. Did you miss that?

And what's manufacturing competitiveness got to do with it? The US is the world's largest manufacturer, and what we don't make here we can design and make overseas. The two have nothing to do with one another. The economy is global, as you well know.

Comment: It's libertarianism (Score 1) 949

by sseaman (#36366494) Attached to: Is There a New Geek Anti-Intellectualism?

Libertarianism seems to be married to a distrust of authority, including academic or otherwise intellectual authority whose power isn't based on some sort of commercially-viable aesthetic appeal (for example, libertarians will acknowledge the authority of bestsellers widely read in their circles, or directors, video game designers, programmers, or musicians).

Comment: Re:Who Gives A Flying Fuck (Score 2) 145

by sseaman (#36263322) Attached to: Anti-Porn Facebook Page is Deleted, Then Restored

You have no right to tell them what is right or wrong to delete.

I'm never good at this--is it irony when someone thinks they have a right to tell people they don't have a right to tell other people to do or not do stuff, or when someone makes it their business to tell someone else, whom presumably they don't know, that something else is none of their business?

Comment: Re:Phasers: How about longbows? (Score 1) 158

by sseaman (#36157504) Attached to: Celebrating the Sci-fi Ray Gun

That's a good point.

I'll add that muskets were also very expensive, but that might not be a downside. Given many British soldiers didn't actually own their weapons, by training on guns they had to return and couldn't afford to buy for themselves they became incapable of rebellion. At the same time, training on longbows, which had been required previously of many men in England, was outlawed.

Presumably this is specifically what the Second Amendment is about--militiamen must be able to own their weapon, and militias are the more democratic form of army. Of course, the point became moot once Federal armies were drawn up and we routinely had soldiers practice with weapons they couldn't afford and, nowadays, can't legally own. What good do your tank, fighter jet, mortar, grenade skills do you when you're not in uniform? You'll never have access to those weapons to use against the government. Therefore, the government doesn't have to worry about you using those skills against it.

That might be the point of the phaser. In the "peaceful" world of Star Trek, phasers have replaced guns specifically because they're more technologically advanced, expensive, and less lethal.

Comment: Re:Yeah, so? (Score 1) 520

by sseaman (#36011516) Attached to: Assange: Facebook 'the Most Appalling Spy Machine' Ever

Then the problem isn't Facebook; it's the FBI, it's your employers, it's your neighbors.

I'm not going to hide my associations with people because I'm terrified the FBI will use them against me, or because my employer might fire me if the FBI calls them, or because my neighbors will hassle me if the Feds deign to visit them.

Why are you prepared to do that?

Hardware Hacking

If You're Going To Kill It, Open Source It 245

Posted by timothy
from the get-some-goodwill-for-your-investment dept.
ptorrone writes "MAKE Magazine is proposing big companies like Cisco and Sony consider 'open sourcing' their failed or discontinued products. The list includes Sony's AIBO and QRIO robots, IBM's Deep Blue chess computer, Ricochet Wireless, Potenco's Pull-Cord Generator, Palm, Microsoft's SPOT Watch, CISCO Flip Camera and more. MAKE is also encouraging everyone to post about what products they'd like to see open sourced."

Comment: Amazing (Score 2) 80

by sseaman (#35966930) Attached to: Pepsi Creates a Social Network Vending Machine

Previously, I had to buy two sodas, and then hand one of the sodas to friend.

With the magic of social networking and Pepsi, now I only have two buy two sodas, enter a phone number, enter a greeting, record a video, and send a free soda code to a friend's mobile device, which they can use to access the same machine and retrieve a free soda.

Some people carve careers, others chisel them.

Working...