Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:installed by a contract third-party IT speciali (Score 1) 39

I used to do the same. I don't any more. After being thrown under the bus for doing EXACTLY what the customer said, against my recommendations(documented no less), no thank you.

WHICH happens to be a great way to make your point even stronger. Telling a customer "no, I won't" gets them to think, perhaps a little. I've had a couple people ask me why I won't, and basically say, "When the shit hits the fan, I don't want to be involved, don't want to clean the mess up, and don't want to take the fall for anyone but me".

I now use a phrase that sums up everything perfectly. "Good IT is expensive, bad IT is costly".

Comment Re:Just Remember, Folks. (Score 1) 133

They're announcing this shortly before the Model 3 goes into production, which will be a mid-budget vehicle.

(Also worth noting: the AutoPilot++ or whatever it's called, the version that's supposedly SAE 5 level that'll be released before the end of the year, isn't free. It's an extra people will have to pay for. If you assume SDC technology will reduce accidents by 66%, and if regular insurance is $1000 a year, then they need to price this at around $3,000 assuming a normal average ten year lifespan of each vehicle. IIRC that was the ball park for the price for the SDC add-on they're going for, so this is quite believable. You're not paying for the technology - that's already paid for, you're buying insurance for the lifetime of the vehicle.

Comment All-In-One likely to be the future norm (Score 4, Insightful) 133

If you bought a chauffeur service you would expect the service to pay the chauffeur, maintain the car, and maintain the insurance. This isn’t much different (other than you own the car). Tesla is large enough to create the shared risk pool that insurance is founded on. Better yet, by also being the insurance it incentives them to make their cars as safe as possible. I don’t image regular insurance companies are too happy about this and will propose various strawman arguments in an attempt to keep Tesla and others from doing this once self-driving cars really get popular. In fact this all in one model is about the only way self-driving cars will be able to work. Self driving cars will only be safe as long as they are always maintained in top condition. Sensors have to be functioning and calibrated. Brakes have to be in good working order to maintain the cars safe expected stopping distance. Software upgrades are needed. Etc...

Once driver error is not the major factor in accidents it just doesn't make sense to keep the old insurance structure as the fault will almost always be with the manufacturer. This does of course reduce the insurance company's incentive (in this case the manufacture) to really go after claims due to negligence, though that will still be a private legal suit option. Let make sure providing the insurance doesn't also take away your right to sue.

Comment Re: Fake News (Score 1) 261

Natural Diamonds and Artificial Diamonds are indistinguishable, except for the fact that an Artificial one is technically superior in just about every way one could judge a diamond. They are also VERY easy to produce, and in VERY large sizes that are nearly impossible to find naturally. This makes the whole Natural vs Artificial argument really stupid.

A diamond is a diamond. It takes special tools to find imperfections in the natural diamonds for even "experts" to tell the difference.

Comment Re:Stop the presses! Someone in IT fucked up! (Score 1) 133

Yes, they do provide birth control. I never said they didn't. You can even get condoms there, does that mean they can claim they are a male health care provider like they claim they are a "women's healthcare provider" because they perform abortions and give out birth control?

To me, a woman's health center would be more concerned about actual health of women. Abortion is very hard on a woman's body, and there is plenty of documented studies that show this. Not that PP would ever tell you the long term risks of abortion on women.

Comment Re:Guilty, I'd say (Score 1) 62

While I agree with your conclusion, I would say that he wasn't "capable" because he was a manager, regardless of his previous status which could have been engineer. I am half convinced there is a secret to getting into management from an actual work position. Based on my own boss's progress, I am convinced that he went to an actual "Dilbert School of Management" and got his PhB degree. I turn to Dilbert every day to see what is his next plan.

Comment Just to add useful information (Score 5, Informative) 62

Alphabet are alleging they have specific evidence the former employee downloaded the designs to a laptop, which he then tried to wipe to hide any trace he'd done this. Alphabet are also alleging the same former employee actually bragged about what he was going to do before he did it.

So... assuming they're not lying, this is pretty much open and shut. I guess we'll find out over the next few weeks.

Comment Re:so non dealer service or not paying for softwar (Score 2) 242

Sometimes the user is at fault. Maybe that means not updating software. Maybe that means after-market software or hardware modifications. Maybe that means extreme neglect of maintenance leading to mechanical failure (which happens now with non-self driving cars), assuming that self-maintaining cars will be way off in the future.

Not only can this be out of the user's control, it should be. The car should be constantly monitoring itself, and the car - being self driven - is capable of driving itself to be serviced, or calling a tow truck if it isn't capable of driving, with core functionality disabled if the car detects a state that means it can't guarantee a safe journey.

There's absolutely no reason not to take this out of the hands of the car "owner". The car doesn't have to be capable of servicing itself, it just needs to be capable of getting qualified people to provide that servicing.

Comment Re:The owner should be liable (Score 1) 242

So in other words, you believe Truth in Advertising laws should be overturned? If someone advertises a car as self driving, the consumer should be on the hook for believing them?

If a car is self driving, the manufacturer is making a claim they should stand behind. The consumer shouldn't be blamed for a fault they could not possibly predict or know about.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 242

I'm not following. At worst, you'd expect the additional costs to be equal to, or less than (if the manufacturer believes their cars are less likely to get into an accident, or that the accidents will be lesser in cost, than a human car) to the cost of the liability insurance human-driven car owners pay.

So anyone looking at a self driving car vs a regular car will see a lower TCO, all other things being equal. In reality, right now the SDC will cost slightly more due to the cost of the actual driving equipment, but what we're looking at here is something that brings the cost down, not pushes it up.

Slashdot Top Deals

Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than being flat broke and having a stomach ache. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"

Working...