Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Overboard, Sad! (Score 1) 192

Of those, flying over crowds is a problem, and if there are bystanders (admittedly likely) around tall buildings as well, but the others are risks of losing the drone only, not a problem for the rest of us.

Wildly optimistic manufacturer claims are a problem in general, not restricted to drones.

And yes, some people are deeply resistant to learning from their mistakes. That's why things are generally more harsh for repeat offenders.

Submission + - Why Don't Mobile OSs offer a Kill Code? 1

gordo3000 writes: Given all the recent headlines about border patrol getting up close and personal with phones, I've been wondering why phone manufacturers don't offer a second emergency pin that you can enter and it wipes all private information on the phone?

In theory, it should be pretty easy to just input a different pin (or unlock pattern) that opens up a factory reset screen on the phone and in the background begins deleting all personal information. I'd expect that same code could also lock out the USB port until it is finished deleting the data, to help prevent many of the tools they now have to copy out everything on your phone.

This nicely prevents you from having to back up and wipe your phone before every trip but leaves you with a safety measure if you get harassed at the border.

So slashdot, what say you?

Comment Over my DEAD BODY. (Score 1) 259

I've been a tinkerer all my life. I mess around with whatever hardware (and software) I want. I like to build stuff, and I even like to modify stuff to work better than their original intention.

now, while I completely understand the manufacturers wish to control sales of ALL their extra parts, original parts and even future parts they didn't even think of - the hardware they sell to YOU are YOURS - period!

The minute the law changes on this, you have gone from a democracy to a dictatorship sort of regime where you can't do as you wish with even your own property. I can even support their wish to forbid reverse engineering with malicious intent to run pirated games on their consoles - fully understandable! But still - the HARDWARE itself is the owners property, the one who purchased the hardware in the first place.

A solution to this could of course be to RENT you the hardware, that would fix their woes right there.

I'm old enough to remember these hardware debates for several decenniums, and they are equally hilarious (and also a bit scary) each time because it's all about controlling the "idiot" consumers. Most of the consumers don't give a hoot about meddling around with hardware and won't even notice. But people like me and my buddies (and probably a lot of the Slashdot originally intended audience) are DIY'ers that love to mess around with their hard-earned hardware, my Atari 2600 is only out of date when I say it is.

Remember the TV with the V-Chip? Remember how the microprocessors in the future Intel generation should be able to be "switched off" if they didn't have some "policing" software that the gov. could control in order to "prevent terrorism"?. Remember when Linux readers/users used to be seen as terrorists and vigilantes?

Anyone - who is capable of doing things on their own - are potential terrorists and troublemakers according to the powers that be, because you have the power to tinker, you have the power to make your opinion HEARD, you have the power to think, act, reverse engineer, modify, learn and educate on your own, in other words - you have POWERS that they don't want you to have.

Comment Re:Well yeah (Score 1) 362

That's actually a good argument for the Universal Basic Income. No punishment for seeking independent income, no way to cheat for it since every citizen is entitled to it.

Part of the depression of government dependence is probably related to various bureaucrats lording it over you and the knowledge that if you manage to make a bit of money independently, you could lose all support and end up on the street.

Comment Re:Well yeah (Score 3, Insightful) 362

That's why we need a safety net that makes it more or less OK if robots take your job.

Don't forget that they can even indirectly take your job or at least cut into your pay. Imagine if robots take 25% of the jobs out there. Some small fraction of those people will then be applying for your job, and they'll probably be cheaper than you.

Comment Re:Call me crazy... (Score 1) 89

Apparently that's part of the solution here. That's why the specs aren't bigger.

Personally, I could use a bit more storage, but it seems fine as-is. I don't need a phone that can do CFD in the background, I just need it to communicate. Voice, text, email, some light web browsing, and an SSH client. It should be fine for that.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 249

If your statement applies to a 27 year old man, it applies to an 80 year old woman. Both in this scenario would have bought a self-driving car from an auto manufacturer. I chose her as an example to highlight for you the absurdity of expecting the end user to have the engineering expertise necessary to be liable for not choosing their mass market self-driving car carefully enough.

But if you prefer, what failure of expertise might a 22 year old liberal arts major show in choosing a m,ass market autonomous vehicle would attract liability for an engineering failure?

Perhaps the real reason you're upset is that your argument hinged on an unreasonable expectation of the consumer's engineering knowledge.

As for your comment about DRIVER error, that would be the autonomous system designed by the auto maker. It would not be the person who punched in the address of the university and pressed go before cramming in an extra 30 minutes of studying for the exam.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 4, Insightful) 249

In general, liability goes to the entity that could and should have done a better job avoiding the incident. So tell me, if an autonomous vehicle crashes, who could have done a better job avoiding that, the manufacturer that marketed the car as safe and their development team, or the 80 year old lady who bought the autonomous vehicle because she was no longer allowed to drive? What is it that you think the lady could and should have done better but failed at to attract a portion of the liability?

Slashdot Top Deals

Yet magic and hierarchy arise from the same source, and this source has a null pointer.