Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re:Good counter-argument, but I think it won't hap (Score 1) 104

A law to the extent that "no autonomous vehicle shall be used to transport passengers or cargo for hire within the limits of the city. Violators shall forfeit the vehicle and pay a $250,000 fine" still supports the autonomous car, and would make the unions happy. Most big cities are deeply blue, and deep blue areas are the places where unions still have any kind of foothold and still exercise power.

Again, I think you're just being unrealistic in your assessment of how easy it will be to displace things like taxi unions.

Comment Re:Careful Seattle, payback is coming (Score 1) 104

If I were building a giant fleet of autonomous robot cars, guess which markets I would absolutely flood with them as soon as they were ready? Any markets that tried to block my human driver efforts today...

There's a gaping hole in your logic: governments that can block your human driver efforts could (would) also block your autonomous vehicles.

Comment Re: Ditch AT&T (Score 1) 88

ATT is gone, the company bearing the name today is southern bell company, SBC. ATT split itself up and sold all the pieces, SBC bought the name.

Someone else noted that you got the particular baby bell wrong, but seriously, how can you say "this isn't AT&T." It's a bunch of AT&T successor companies that merged back together.

"It's not the Empire, it's the First Order. Sure they've got stormtroopers, and TIE fighters, and Star Destroyers, and evil jedi/sith with their red lightsaber blades, and yeah, they've got an even bigger death star and they're blowing up planets, their Vader analog is running around with Vader's fucking head in his sock drawer, but they don't have Bell Labs and Verizon, so it's obviously not AT&T."

Comment Re:Startups (VC funding) should make $1million mes (Score 1) 408

For example, I worked for a company that was growing 80% per year, becoming a leader in a new business segment. They would quickly duct tape together some software that would allow them to expand into another chunk of the market, a chunk that will be worth $20 million in four years. Later, they can spend $1 million to go back and fix the duct tape mess. They net $19 million that way, incurring $1 million in technical debt to quickly grab $20 million of the market before competitors do.

While I agree the above is completely logical, the difference between technical debt and financial debt is that there is no one holding you accountable for paying back the former. There's also the problem that technical debt has its own interest expenses... you'll find that your initial shortcuts have been built upon, and those things have themselves been built upon, and you can't simply fix the original problem without incurring FAR more cost. Even if the costs to fix the problem haven't ballooned, the money people have no desire to "waste" that million dollars to retire technical debt. They'd rather spend by investing in another new market, or paying bonuses, or dividends.

Comment Re:Only remove it for California (Score 1) 218

Anti-discrimination laws are allowed by the constitution. Those laws can prohibit certain speech. That's well established and tested in court.

Can you supply some of these laws and court cases? I'm not trolling nor is it a rhetorical question. Free speech has been on my mind lately, and I see a lot of people state (without evidence) that the US (or states, or something) has a few, narrow restrictive laws regarding racism and discrimination, in regard to what can be said/printed. But nobody is interested or able to provide examples. Thanks in advance.

Comment Re:A clear preference (Score 1) 732

"Excellent president"

Sure, if you ignore the fact that:
3) Waco and Ruby Ridge happened under Clinton's DOJ, which led to the further rise of insane right-wing militias. Those incidents also led directly to the Oklahoma City Bombing.

I wasn't aware that Bill Clinton was already in office in 1992.

Comment Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... (Score 2) 159

The narrative is that Ashcroft lost to Mel Carnahan, but Ashcroft was really running against Jean Carnahan, Mel's wife (who the governor announced would be appointed in the event that Carnahan won). There's really no effective campaign strategy against a recent widow whose name isn't even on the ballot.

Not that I think Ashcroft should have won, or that he was a good AG, but the "haha, he lost to a dead guy" bit really irritates me given that the actual situation was much more complicated than that. When it's followed up by the suggestion that he was unqualified for an appointed office for that reason, it's hard to take someone seriously.

Slashdot Top Deals

The finest eloquence is that which gets things done.

Working...