Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Oh noes! (Score 1) 736

* Taxi drivers: Probably not going to lose their jobs. Someone has to monitor the vehicle after all.
* Limo drivers: Ditto. Plus the driver is part of the service.
* Couriers: Probably not going to lose their jobs. They're using the car as a tool to get from A to B, the car isn't the thing doing the job.
* Mitt Romney's chauffeur: Maybe, but I doubt that many people have that type of job, and in any case, there's a good chance the job would be kept as the same guy is also responsible for maintaining the car.
* NASCAR drivers: Nobody cares about machines going in circles. It's not worth watching if there's no person in the center of that giant exploding crash thing.

So the answer to the question "What new^H^H^Hcareers do you foresee that current professional drivers would qualify for" would be "The ones they currently have." Professional drivers have their jobs not because they're superbly skilled drivers, but because just about all jobs requiring a car move from A to B require that a person be directly involved.

But before we go on, let's get some perspective:

In London, there are two major rail based transport systems. The London Underground is a huge, traditional, interconnected underground railway which has one person, the driver, on every train. Some trains have more, but the minimum for operation is that one driver.

And then there's the Dockland's Light Railway. Now, that's a modern system put in during the 1980s, and when they created that, someone said "Wait a moment! This is an electric train running on tracks, and we have these things called "Computers" now that can control everything, in theory this train thingie doesn't need a driver!" And so that's what they made, a completely automated train. It's great. The trains don't have drivers. Just, uh, guards, who collect tickets, and make sure passengers are safe and aren't caught in doors or anything.

Computers have a habit of changing people's jobs, not obsoleting them.

Comment Re:As usual. (Score 1) 622

What flippant tone?

My response was to someone claiming that ALL ANTIVAXERS WILL BE WIPED OUT by measles.

Perhaps you can explain exactly what form of words should be used to describe the fact that this is a ridiculous assertion that wouldn't, in your tiny kneejerking mind, be seen as "flippant"?

Here's my original comment. Where's the flippancy?

OK, you know it's measles we're talking about? Something that was pretty common until vaccinations. I'm old enough to have had it myself.

We're still here, so my guess is that evolution isn't going to take care of "people who prefer not to be vaccinated against measles".

Comment Re:it's puritanism (Score 1) 462

Actually these days I'm pretty sure that if Obama makes it clear he's opposed to Nuclear War, conservatives everywhere will spend most of their time talking about the "benefits" of a world wide catastrophic nuclear armageddon.

This is the party that's foaming at the mouth over its own healthcare system because Obama was the President that pushed Congress into adopting it. They're completely nuts.

Comment Re:Missing the point of text messages... (Score 1) 628

This is a balance of probabilities - the court is determining who pays how much of the damages. The fact she's on an interstate highway she's not at a red light, and realistically people don't pull over to read text messages. (Someone might pull over to respond to one, but they've already crossed the line by reading it.)

(Of course, my wife wouldn't read or write texts on her phone anyway while driving anyway, but I was using a generic example. Still, I wouldn't rely on it and text her if I knew she was driving.)

Comment Re:Idiocracy (Score 1, Insightful) 628

It's like saying that a cute girl is responsible for your bad driving because she is walking down the road in the summer wearing shorts and a bikini top looking hot. Based on the logic above, she would hold some responsibility simply because she knows that guys would be driving down the road looking at her, causing accidents.

No, that's bizarre logic. Short of using a burkha, the woman can't avoid being "cute", and in any case isn't doing so to catch the eye of drivers (mind you: in an extreme case even this could happen, if a "pretty girl" decided to flash her chest at male drivers at a busy intersection, and there was an accident, I'd say it would be pretty likely that, in addition to any indecency charges, the woman would be held partly accountable for the carnage.)

You're making a proactive effort to communicate with a driver in an unsafe way, on the other hand. You're sending them text messages. You know they're driving. You know the recipient is likely to respond, which means you're expecting them to respond.

How. Are. You. Not. Partly. Responsible? Seriously. You're expecting someone to do X if you do Y. You don't have to do Y. You do it anyway, because you want X to happen.

It's not unfair. It's not unreasonable. And if you seriously don't want to be held responsible for an accident that wouldn't have happened if you'd avoided doing something you knew could cause an accident, wouldn't it be reasonable for you to just not do it, rather than bitch about the possibility you might get part of the blame on Slashdot?

Comment Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary (Score 1) 628

Read. The. Fucking. Summary.

Seriously. You don't even have to RTFA. Just the summary.

'...a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.'"

This is not about sending texts to people who may or may not be driving. It's not about sending texts to drivers. It's about sending texts to people who are driving, who you already know are going to read your texts while driving.

Comment Re:Missing the point of text messages... (Score 1) 628

Absolutely none of your analogies fit. Remember, the judge didn't say "Texting to someone who owns a car is illegal", they said "You share responsibility if you know that the recepient of your text message is driving and are going to respond to it."

For example:

Me: "WHERE R U?"
Her: "ON I-95, BE HOME IN 10 MINS"

If there's an accident, she's 100% to blame.


Me: "WHERE R U?"
Her: "ON I-95, BE HOME IN 10 MINS"

If there's an accident, we share blame.

What's the difference between the two? In the first case I don't respond. I find out my wife is driving, via a text from her which means she's driving, reading texts while driving, and responding to texts while driving, and I can reasonably infer that if I send her something else she'll respond to that too. I avoid responding.

In the second case, I make that inference, but I decide to continue sending her messages, knowing damned well she may well respond to them, and will almost certainly read them, while driving.

Comment Re:Idiocracy (Score 5, Insightful) 628

but this is just as nonsensical as the court ruling about knowingly texting someone while they are driving

Well, if you put it like that, then yeah, the court's decision would be nonsensical. But the court didn't say that. The court said that you share responsibility if you have good reasons to believe the text receiver is not merely driving, but will read the text while driving.

Which is commonsense. You don't get an out for something you initiate simply because the mechanism you're relying upon involves someone else being irresponsible. And the court's not making you solely responsible, but it isn't letting you off the hook either.

This is about personal responsibility. Personal responsibility does not mean blaming one person for the actions of multiple people, it means each person involved stepping up to the plate and taking responsible for their part. If you're texting people knowing they're reading those texts while driving, then you're an irresponsible jerk. The driver's irresponsible too, but you know they're reading those messages, and you're sending the messages anyway. Don't pretend it's got nothing to do with you.

Comment Re:As usual. (Score 1) 622

I was unaware that the population of the world had been declining until the 1980s. Who'd have thunk?

Notes to others considering responding to my comment:

1. The context is someone claiming that "Darwinism" will take care of the anti-vaxxers. ie that the anti-vax brigade will eventually all die out with no offspring.
2. Nobody's claiming that nobody has ever died from measles or had long term health problems.

But it is ridiculous to suggest that numbers of deaths or those with serious long term health problems are so high that measles is a danger to the survival of the species, or the survival of any subset that chooses to expose itself to it.

Those of you suggesting otherwise are being ridiculous, and you're making it harder for us sane people to be taken seriously when we try to persuade anti-vaxxers they're wrong.

Comment Re:If they're skipping MMR (Score 1) 622

I got mumps too as a kid, FWIW. Rubella/German measles - no, though it was common when I was a kid, and from what I've read the major concerns with it are catching it during pregnancy, which is rare. Despite both mumps and measles I'm still alive and the sound of my daughter waking up downstairs would probably suggest that my fertility isn't a problem.

Again, though, we're talking about common illnesses, illnesses that, quite honestly, most people were exposed to and caught, before vaccinations against them took on. They do have unpleasant affects. A tiny but not insignificant percentage of victims die. There can be, but again are rarely, side effects that linger for the rest of the victim's life.

But by and large, the majority of measles (or mumps or rubella) victims - which actually constitutes the majority of Brits and Americans (I can't speak for other counties) prior to the 1980s - survive without problems. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't vaccinate, but it does mean that assertions like the one the OP made, claiming that anti-vaxers will be wiped out by these illnesses, are absurd on the face of it - even accounting for the fact that even anti-vaxers will rarely actually catch the illnesses they refuse to vaccinate themselves or their children against because the wide usage of vaccination means it's more difficult for these illnesses to spread.

These can be horrible diseases, and you should vaccinate against them. But if we ever somehow are unable to continue doing so, the world will go on and humanity will survive.

Comment Re:As usual. (Score 2) 622

I seriously doubt that the population of this megachurch has more than two generations that haven't been exposed directly to measles - and those two generations are almost all going to be people who are children of, or grandchildren of, people who have. Measles was extremely common before vaccination, and while it can kill, deaths are generally rare.

This is not to suggest the vaccine isn't good (especially as the measles vaccine is usually administered as MMR, dealing with mumps and rubella), but it's over the top to suggest that anti-vaxers are going to get wiped out due to their idiocy.

Comment Re:A distinction without a difference (Score 2) 82

This is a preview SDK. They're not obliged at this point to retain compatability or to avoid breaking anything. In fact, they can quite legitimately throw the entire API out and replace it with something else.

Anyone developing for Chromecast right now knows this, which meant the original article was dubious, if not intentionally deceptive. The author's program would have broken whether they'd written the app to stream from local hard drives or from

Ultimately anyone who wants to write their own streaming servers, be they for commercial services or for home hacking, continues to be able to do so, and in a few months they'll have a stable API to code against. Local streaming was never broken.

Slashdot Top Deals

C++ is the best example of second-system effect since OS/360.