Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

At the same time, you may want to ask why they would be willing to go to a company that can't even spell correctly, to get body parts, given that they've demonstrated poor quality control already.

From the front page of the TeVido web site:

"Our first product is targeted to improve nipple reconstruction and later fill lumpectomies and other fat grating needs."

I suppose that this is supposed to be "fat grafting", unless they plan on pulling a full-on "Dr. Lector", or they are 3D printing parmesan cheese.

The obvious answer is three... if you are a bowler.

It would certainly give a whole new meaning to "The Big Lebowski".

A Mac Mini with those specs costs $1400 with gen4 intel processors (will probably be the same price when gen5 is released). I didn't see any prices for the Intel versions but it will likely be under $1400.

The 4th gen i7 Intel NUC is $400 after rebate from Amazon right now. Add 16 GB of SODIMM RAM for $150 and a 256GB SSD for $200 (both are high figures) and you have a Mac Mini equivalent for $750. I might be missing something, but probably not $650 worth of missed items.

No, but they really piss off people who disagree with Linus' interpretation of the GPL when it comes to binary only drivers.

I imagine this case actually hinges on an EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL symbol that VMWare uses, or an API underneath one of those as an API aggregator, to which the aggregator would like to force all sub-APIs to reverse-inherit the label. Which is more or less similar to const-poisoning all the way down.

My expectation is that (1) If there is not explicit user, or (2) it's possible to recompile the drivers, which is what's really in question, that if VMWare themselves don't do the compilation, it's going to be fine.

One of the reasons for bringing this action in the venue where it's being brought is that it's extremely unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing elsewhere, as people will quote Linux ad infinitum, and Helwig would almost certainly lose his case. He may lose anyway, as a matter of "standing", before they even make it to any other arguments.

Looks like they can attack this problem from both sides.

1) Keep improving AI so autonomous cars become better drivers
2) Keep increasing over-reliance on technology, making humans worse drivers

This way autonomous drivers can take over quicker.

OP-20-G broke JN25 with a bit of help from the English, Dutch and Australians who along with the US had been working on JN25 since before the war.

After Yamamato's plane was shot down Japan guessed that the Americans had broken had broken one of their codes, but they guessed the wrong code.

Looking for the Bismarck leads you to St Paul's Cathedral.

The increase in construction of Aircraft Carriers was a direct result of naval arms limitation treaties like The Washington Naval Treaty and The London Naval Treaty (not including the Second London Naval Treaty as that was almost universally broken). These treaties introduced limitations on the total displacement of all battleships that could be in various powers navies at any one time including the United States and Empire of Japan. After the Washington Naval Treaty was signed many of the battleships under construction were changed to become aircraft carriers to stay within the treaties limitations.

Aircraft carriers enjoyed a steady rise in numbers and technology as battleships stagnated from the 20's onwards.

Whilst the US, Japan and UK shifted focus to aircraft carriers, the Germans focused on building submarines and big gun heavy cruisers (pocket battleships) which turned out quite disastrously for them.

If it's that easy... Why are there still criminals?

The sad fact is, it's not that easy. The money is funnelled through shell companies and offshore (most of the time the shell company is offshore to begin with) where it cant be traced by US authorities and then moved around a bit more for good measure (in increasingly legit transactions, but realistically it's just one front paying another until the money becomes clean enough to use).

Every time a computer gets good at a task once thought to be outside of the realm of AI, people simply rationalize how it wasn't that hard in the first place. Soon people will be saying how self-driving cars weren't that hard to create for whatever reason. Then something else will be "impossible" for a computer to do.

The concentration of transistors has nothing to do with this.

You rely on a bad interpretation of Moore's Law at your own peril.

The technology will be adopted slowly because any mistake will kill the technology. When your laptop crashes due to a production fault, you might lose a little bit of work that you'll have to redo, when a car crashes due to a production fault, there's a good chance people will die. So ordinarily cautious and conservative car companies will be even more cautious and conservative with autonomous cars because they know the first one to make a mistake is a dead company walking.

The problem isn't with hardware processing power, autonomous cars can work with HW which is currently available off the shelf. It's not even with hardware reliability that's a concern. The big question mark is in software reliability. We've got a very long way to go with that.

No,

Pilots are still there because autopilots can fail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

You didn't hear about this 4 years ago because no-one died... Thanks to some quick thinking by the "error prone" lumps of meat in the cockpit.

Why don't we just incorporate them?

Then they'll legally be people, and they can get their own driver's licenses!

However when you're not being held at gun point, the ready access to coke and Mexican hookers seems like quite a perk.

Better than the bruised fruit and instant coffee my cheapskate boss puts out.

Or the ideal excuse for a sick day.

"Uh, yeah, Boss, so I wont be coming into work today because I've been kidnapped and forced to work for a Mexican drug cartel as a sysadmin. Might be in on Tuesday if the hangov... Erm they decide to release me. Peace out."