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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Why I doubt driverless cars will ever happen (Score 1) 604

This is my exact reasoning why flying cars will never take off (pardon the pun). People keep their cars in terrible condition. If your car has an engine failure, worst case scenario, you pull over to the side of the road, or end up blocking traffic. In a flying vehicle, if your engine dies, It's very possible that you will die too. And if you are above a city, it's not impossible to imagine crashing into an innocent bystander.

I imagine the same will be for self driving cars. It will never happen because if the car is getting bad information from its sensors, then crazy things can happen. People can't be bothered to clean more than 2 square inches from their windshield in the winter. Do you really think they are going to go around cleaning the 10 different sensors of ice and snow every winter morning? Sure the car could refuse to operate if the sensors are blocked, but then I guess people would just not want to buy the car, or complain to the dealer about it.

It's a self-driving car. It could take itself to the dealer for maintenance. (Granted that won't help with the ice on the sensors thing, but we'll have some time to figure out a heating system to melt that off.)

Comment Re:But that's not the real problem. (Score 1) 1651

In the US the rules regarding whether bicycles are allowed on sidewalks is generally determined by localities, although I'm sure there are some state level laws as well. Where I grew up, it was legal, and in fact was how I was taught to ride whenever there was a sidewalk to use. Of course whenever you came upon a pedestrian, you were supposed to hop off and walk your bike past them.

That wouldn't work in an area with heavy pedestrian traffic, but as spread out as things were where I lived, you didn't have to hop down very often. I don't have any studies, but I'd wager that is safer than biking on the road, even if it can end up being much slower and more troublesome depending on how many people there are, and completely pointless to even bring the bike in a major city.

Comment Re:But that's not the real problem. (Score 1) 1651

I used to bike to town back before I went off to college all the time despite living in the middle of nowhere. It was about an hour trip by bike and very hilly. Sometimes I'd even hike it. Yet now I would never consider biking or walking to work, despite it being less than a quarter of the distance. In the middle of nowhere, you'd occasionally see a car and there'd be plenty of room as the two of you split the road. Now, there's simply far too many and I'm not about to share the road with them.

If they had an unbroken chain of sidewalk and/or bike lanes, I would gladly skip the car whenever the weather is nice. It's not helmets for me, but infrastructure that keeps me from biking. Legal or not, I will not bike on a busy road and I prefer not to walk along it either if I can at all avoid it. So until and unless they fix that, I'll drive 8 minutes to work every day.

Comment Re:I'll die happy (Score 1) 251

I think it would be helpful if everyone that shares anecdotes about their life involving their weight also mention their height. You may be 4'8", which would mean you still have a lot of weight to lose. You may also be 6'6" and be rather thin now.

Heh, true enough. I'm 6'1" which makes me fairly comfortable with my weight.

Comment Re:I'll die happy (Score 3, Interesting) 251

I didn't read TFA but I wonder if this study consider the quality of those calories, e.g. in America we try and diet by eating one cheeseburger instead of two, of course we could have eaten 5 apples instead, been full and satisfied, and gotten some nutrition as well.

Who would want to eat five apples in one sitting? Even if I were hungry, I'd probably just stop at one and wait till the next meal. At least pick a more appealing fruit like an orange.

But seriously, I dropped from 205 pounds to 170 and have kept it off for years with virtually exercise and with the only change to what I'm consuming being that I never buy any beverages with calories. Mostly stick to water with some diet pop on occasion. Other than that, I just cut back portions and eliminated snacking between meals.

Funny thing is, I motivate myself to diet with food. I have a very strict rule that I never eat out/order in unless I'm below 170 pounds. Then I'll get whatever food I want and have one meal where I eat without restraint. After that, I have to diet off whatever I gained and repeat the process. Keeps me happy, and sure beats going vegetarian and/or spending hours a week in the gym.

Comment Re:Soooo (Score 1) 222

If God created it then being the deceitful God that he is, he could have done it 6000 years ago to make it look like it was done billions of years ago. He could have also done it yesterday and created the universe as-is complete with memories and fossil evidence of days gone by.

Creates world 6000 years ago

Spreads lots of clues that something else happened instead (fossils, C14 dating, star light already travelling towards us, etcetera)

To be fair, if you took a human, and gave them immortality,a blank universe, and godlike powers in it, how many would start with a big bang and sit around waiting for billions of years to see what happened? They'd just jump ahead. Most humans that wanted to play around would start with civilization already existing including a history that never actually occurred. The same thing happens in novels and other narratives. Why would it actually existing change anything?

Not only would I not find at all odd for records to exist that would indicate a past that never actually occurred, I would expect it from any godlike being with thought processes that at all mimicked those of humans. (Or I suppose it would be human thought processes mimicking their creator in this case.)

Comment Re:The problem was noticed (Score 1) 474

Except the paper isn't trying to disprove that their has been a warming trend, only showing that in the US at least, that trend has been exaggerated. Satellite evidence may actually support that fact. Here are the trends for surface based measurements, and two satellite measurements since 1979.

RSS +0.137 C/decade.
UAH +0.136C/decade
Surface Temperatures +0.17 C/decade

That's 24% more warming in the surface data sets. In addition, both satellite records show 1998 being the hottest year since modern records began, while the surface temperature records show several years since than being hotter. Now the paper calls for a much larger bias in the trend, but not on the global level. So without looking at any of the data, it's at least a plausible conclusion that a much more highly inaccurate US data set could be responsible for most of the global difference from the satellite record.

Comment Re:And then you circle back around (Score 1) 505

Yes, there is a link, but causation has not been shown. The liklihood is that schitzophrenia makes one more prone to smoke marijuana.

Did you read the entire article? Because if you continue on, you'll find this:

Nevertheless, research on cannabis as a risk factor continued. Psychiatrists from the University of Amsterdam published data suggesting that schizophrenia patients who used cannabis showed worse outcomes than those who didn’t, and further studies confirmed this observation. Recent work following large groups over time also added to the risk theory – and these were careful to include all relevant factors.

Mary Cannon, of Ireland’s Royal College of Surgeons, took part in a New Zealand-based study which found that smoking cannabis before the age of 15 increased the risk of schizophrenia from 3% to 10% by age 26.

Comment Re:And then you circle back around (Score 1) 505

Well in my mind there's no question that tobacco is far worse than marjiuana, claiming there's no bad side effects at all is always a risky claim to make. There have been studies that indicate that's not the case as it leads to increased risk of schizophrenia, especially when used by adolescents.

I'm not even claiming that's a strong enough reason to keep it banned, just that there are bad side effects.

Comment Re:The next question is... (Score 4, Insightful) 193

Skimming the article, it doesn't even seem they considered a very real possibility. That political bias doesn't affect how people perceive temperature, but that people tend to answer polls in a way that reflects well on their personal beliefs even if they know that answer isn't entirely truthful.

Comment Re:Open source? (Score 1) 302

Number 3 could be problematic. If a vote could be verified, then it can also be coerced. Or bought. Or extorted.

They can already tell too much just by watching which elections you vote in and extrapolating your likelihood of voting in other elections based on past preferences.

I strongly agree with this, even though I know they'll do their best to keep anyone but the actual voter from being able to confirm. For the same reasons people fear electronic voting with no paper trail is too is a security flaw that will lead to fraud, I feel that any system that allows confirmation will eventually lead to some people's votes being discovered by those who shouldn't have access to them.

And let's face it, any election that can have the result changed by fraud without it immediately being obvious that it was crooked was very close to begin with. I'm not so worried that someone who should have lost 46% to 49% wins the race as I am that the secret ballot is compromised. The secret nature of the ballot is one of the primary aspects of democracy that I feel must be protected at all costs. So I am strongly against ever implementing anything of the sort.

Comment Re:Judges are necessary (Score 1) 345

I haven't seen the video in question, so I'm withholding judgment on it, but I think it's possible to say something is morally wrong without it being hate speech. I think lying is morally wrong, but I admit to lying fairly frequently, and suspect most everyone I know does as well. It doesn't bother me in the least being around liars or being friends with them. I certainly don't hate them in the least.

With that being said, even if saying lying is morally wrong might upset some liars, and might not be the most open-minded thing to say, semantically I don't see how it can be hate speech if hate neither motivated the speech nor was called for in it. If someone else made a similar claim about same-sex marriage, even if I disagreed with them, I wouldn't call it hate speech.

That said, hate speech or no, I fully agree that youtube has every right to remove it.

Comment Re:Ridiculous patent system (Score 1) 255

1. Because of the games that are only available consoles.
2. Because the cost of buying a new console every 6-8 years is less than the cost of keeping a computer current enough to play the new games when they come out.
3. Because some people like simplicity, and when you buy a PS3 game, you know it will play on your PS3 without having to look up a single hardware requirement or driver compatibility crash bug report.

For me it's primarily number 1, although number 3 is nice at times. I play both PC and console games, but honestly, there's just far more console exclusives I want to play than PC exclusives, so I spend more time on my console. As a note, both user mods and keyboard/mouse play are supported for at least some of the consoles, even if developers don't always take advantage of it and their might be some extra red tape around the mods.

Slashdot Top Deals

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman