Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Pay-to-debug (Score 1) 210

I mentioned all the BLIS errors I got when I had the car in for something else and the mechanic said not to bother, it was probably working normally, as in not very well.

I think the audible warnings my wife's Acura gets for lane changes are way more useful than visual alerts on the mirrors (although I suppose both is even better).

I suppose some of the driving assistance stuff like lane warnings has helpful use cases, but maybe I overestimate the general public's ability to drive sanely, cell phone use, etc.

My Mazda gives a visual warning on the side mirrors when it detects a car in the blind spot, and an audible warning if you put your turn signal on in that direction. Seems like the best of both worlds. (for drivers that use their turn signals)

Comment Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? (Score 1) 172

I hope you're not suggesting that the hurricane zones are places for the poor. They are some of the most expensive places in the US to live, what with being coastal.

If you want a place for the poor, move to Nebraska or South Dakota or some shit. No hurricanes there. Not much of anything there, but it's cheap.

Did I say something that suggests I wanted to uproot poor people from wherever they live now and force them into containment camps out of the way of hurricans?

Besides, why do you want to move them from hurricane country to tornado country? There are few places in the USA that are not subject to some natural disaster whether hurricanes, flooding, fires, tornados, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.

Comment This type of accident will increase (Score 4, Insightful) 210

As autonomous cars get better and better, we'll see more and more accidents attributed to driver inattention -- the better the car is at driving, the less the human is going to pay attention to the car or the road, and by the time the car tells the driver "Oh hey, I don't know how to handle this situation, you take over!", the driver won't have enough situational awareness to get out of the situation.

Though the flip side is that as the cars get better at driving, the overall accident rate will decrease.

The same problem already exists with airplane pilots , and it can be even worse where the autopilot compensates for some building condition (like icing), and by the time it gives up control to the pilot, the plane may already be in a bad state and the pilot has little time to figure out why.

Comment Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? (Score 2) 172

It's easy to say that when you're wealthy enough that you can afford to fill your car with gas (and you have a car) to take your valuables and get out of town, but when you're faced with leaving everything you value in life back in your home so you can wait for a bus that never comes to take you to a shelter of unknown safety/supplies to be packed in a room with 1000 other people who, like you , are also too poor to evacuate.... you might reconsider.

Comment Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? (Score 2) 172

I'd say the GP AC is a "decent human being", to use your words, because of this part of the comment: "Why risk lives saving the stupid?". So clearly the GP AC is compassionate and cares about people, but just people who aren't stupid. If anyone is lacking compassion, I have to agree that it would be the people who chose to stay behind despite ample warning, and who then demand to be rescued, needlessly endangering the lives of the rescuers. Putting other people in danger out of your own negligent behavior is not "being a decent human being".

Not everyone that rides out a hurricane is "stupid", some don't have the means to leave the area.

Comment Re: Vigilante justice (Score 3, Interesting) 172

Bad idea. Let the cops handle things. You won't be able to absorb the legal liability.

During a large scale disaster, you may as well say "Let the people die". Police and other government agencies are completely overwhelmed in such situations. San Francisco and other cities in earthquake regions realize that and train local citizens in CERT/NERT classes to take part in a neighborhood emergency response team knowing that it can be days before rescuers outside the area can make it in.

Comment Re:That's disgusting (Score 1) 328

Nobody said it was sustainable. They did it, and they're not filing for bankruptcy, therefore they could afford it. QED, motherfucker.

But they didn't do it. They didn't ship 75KWh batteries at the same price point as the 60KWh hour batteries. They shipped 75KWh batteries downrated to 60KWh to preserve the premium 75KWh model -- if they didn't do that, then no one would pay extra for the larger battery.

Comment Re:That's disgusting (Score 1) 328

The proof is the fact that they did it.

Selling a product at a particular price doesn't prove that it's sustainable to do so.

They could even be taking a net loss on the car, and still be better off if by using the larger batteries they can sell them faster. It can be better for a company's financial situation to earn $60K today for a car that cost $65K to build than to earn $65K when you can sell it in 6 months when the smaller battery is in stock. And if you lose orders when customers are forced to wait longer for their cars, you could lose much more money by waiting and not selling at all than by selling at a loss.

Comment Re:Fanboism (Score 1) 328

If Apple or Sony did something like this with the iPhone or PS4, the comment sections would filled with people screaming boycott.

But when Tesla did this, yay, what a good guy!

Yep, this is the rampant fanboism in /. This is basically no different from mindless left/right, R/D, creationist religious nut that /.ers like to look down upon.

How do you know they don't? How do you know that the only difference between a 64GB and 128GB iPhone isn't that they blow a fuse at the factory to restrict the memory when they sell the 64GB model, but it has the exact same storage hardware? And if they do this, do you care? You paid less for the 64GB phone than the 128GB phone.

Comment Re: Uh huh... (Score 1) 328

The crippled betteries are sold under cost.

The problem with that business model is eventually someone will figure out how to "jailbreak" their car and enhance the battery life without paying Tesla for the privilege. This will create all kinds of legal nightmares. Historically car owners have been allowed to "soup up their ride" (as long as the resulting vehicle is street legal), but with this new kind of business model that Tesla has, that could change. When you buy a car will there be an EULA that forbids making improvements? This could be a slippery slope.

Some will, but most won't -- not many people are going to risk reflashing their $70K car to "save" $5K while losing warranty coverage. I doubt Tesla will care if people wait until the 4 year warranty period is up before reflashing.

Comment Re:A warning letter (Score 1) 80

In any case, why is efficacy testing a bad thing? Shouldn't a drug be proven to actually treat the condition it's supposed to be treating?

Ask anyone that cant get a drug that works because testing for their rare condition will never be done because the drug also works for some common condition.

Good intentions for the sake of good intentions costs lives. Your policy is equivalent to murder.

That's what off label prescribing is for -- if your doctor thinks that a drug will treat your condition even if that's not the primary purpose of the drug, he can prescribe it for that condition. But drug companies shouldn't be allowed to shot-gun all of their drugs on the market without any proof that they treat any condition at all.

So call off the police, I haven't murdered any one.

Comment Re:A warning letter (Score 2) 80

After the thalidomide fiasco, the FDA took the European scandal opportunity to increase the scope of its power and influence by petitioned congress to add Efficacy testing. It made no sense but the reasons for expanding government power rarely does.

Isn't it easier to prove efficacy than to prove safety?

To prove that something works you just have to show that people had an improvement in the condition being treated. You don't need to follow up every side effect and see if it was caused by your drug.

In any case, why is efficacy testing a bad thing? Shouldn't a drug be proven to actually treat the condition it's supposed to be treating?

The cost to bring a drug to market is excessive, but that doesn't mean that drugs should be sold without any proof that they work.

Comment Re: Work 24/7! (Score 1) 199

There's a wee bit of difference between getting drunk for an evening and a week of vacation with no phone coverage at all, in the days most crucial for the company's survival

He's been posting burning man pics to his Instagram feed while he's at Burning Man, so why assume he's completely out of contact? Evans isn't even the CEO, he's handed that off to someone else, so he may be letting the real CEO call the shots.

Slashdot Top Deals

We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission

Working...