Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Next step... (Score 1) 154

Ok, that makes sense... but why do you need the arb clause instead of just going to small claims court or civil court? I understand wanting the arb clause, but mandating it when someone else doesn't want to give up their rights to court review is something that I generally oppose in other contexts, so I'm curious why it matters so much in your context.

Comment Re:Will it stand? (Score 1) 154

Not a lawyer, but I was trained in First Amendment law as part of my degree. The First Amendment does not apply to individuals or businesses limiting other individuals or businesses. First Amendment doesn't enter into this discussion. Contracts aren't speech. They're agreements between people, and the government does limit what types of things you can compel another person to do in a contract. Frequently, Congress has acted to limit asymetries of power... notice that this bill affects FORM CONTRACTS only ... that means the ones that are created for mass signatures... if you want to have a personalized contract -- one where you sign and then a company rep personally countersigns -- then I think this doesn't apply. But for that last bit, you would need to check with a lawyer.

Comment Re:Mainstream media is scared (Score 4, Insightful) 725

Breitbart was more widely *read*. Readership has no bearing on credibility. That's exactly the problem. You cannot derive whether they are a trustworthy site simply from the fact that many people trust them. Trustworthiness comes from having your statements vetted by other people -- you claim that X is true... can I independently demonstrate that X is true? If I cannot, your trustworthiness should decrease. The problem we are facing is that it instead sometimes *increases* because of the partisanship. Rather than say "Site Y claims X but no one else can validate X so Y must be wrong", we get people who say "Site Y claims X, no one else can validate X, so everyone else must be engaged in a coverup conspiracy" or some variation on that theme.

Comment Re: Real Problem (Score 1) 367

You have the choice to get in the car, same as today. If SDC is better than most humans --- and we're very close to that --- then most humans should be in an SDC. And the more SDCs there are, the fewer accidents because they all know how each other will react -- no sudden erratic changes of mind about lanes!

Comment Re: Real Problem (Score 1) 367

Road traffic surveys for anti-texting laws deny that claim. Last I heard when my city was debating an anti-texting ordinance, about half of drivers are distracted to a degree sufficient to impair their response in an emergency. Our saving grace is that emergencies are relatively rare.

Comment Re: What does this even mean ? (Score 2) 367

You should read non-fiction "The Robot's Rebellion." Ignore the preface of author rambling... the 8 core chapters are some of the most heavily footnoted text I've ever waded through detaining just how many guess-and-check shortcuts the human brain takes. The book lays out study after study, including some things you can try on your own, that pretty much denies any argument about humans having a serious advantage over computers in high-speed decision making. With deliberation, our brains are awesome. In the heat of the moment, we aren't even consistent in our heuristics.

Comment Re: So basically ... the attack wins? (Score 1) 212

My understanding is that they have massive bandwidth for all their normal traffic, but their *spare* bandwidth for surprise DDoS traffic was more limited, and this exceeded their spare unused capacity and it exceeded their $$$ for negotiating additional. If I'm misunderstanding something, please explain what I've missed.

Slashdot Top Deals

A man is known by the company he organizes. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...