Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: So a guy that runs a ride sharing company. (Score 1) 274

Yeah it's also true that people here in the UK seem to be buying cheap cars too because we can't afford good ones generally. You see tons (literally) of cheap dacia and Kia on the road, with cheap as can be dirty diesel engines. If ride sharing in autonomous cars becomes popular it will be because the cost is equivalent to owning only a small portion of a car. This smaller burden would allow regulators to tighten emissions targets while still allowing people to get around.

Comment Re: Driving yes, but charging? (Score 2) 990

Good points about what happens when EV adoption catches on. I never see it discussed at length what happens to petrol prices once we get to this point though. What happens when petrol stations see months and months of falling sales? Will they shut up shop? It seems likely to me that if the trend towards EVs gains traction it will be very difficult to run a petrol station profitably, and many will go bust or close. Petrol stations will become further apart and less convenient in a positive feedback loop that will make EVs even more appealing.

Comment Re:It was a terrible deal for Britain anyway (Score 0) 170

Nobody is 'forgetting' that wind turbines fail, but in all those videos how many people were hurt/killed? One bird, I saw. And negligible impact on the energy grid. The main issue is that a new turbine needs to be put up. Compared to the failure mode for nuclear which would you prefer?

Comment Re:Contempt? (Score 2) 413

So, you're saying YOU can determine the spirit of the ruling better than the lawyers that were in the courtroom?

The spirit of the ruling was to reverse PR damage against Samsung by apologising to them. Nobody is saying that the lawyers in the courtroom failed to DETERMINE the spirit, but what it looks like (to me and others) is that they are deliberately failing to COMPLY with the spirit of the ruling.

Or is there the chance that he said those things, but felt he to rule the other way, and will give Apple leeway to show his words?

He did say those things, but in using them so selectively in their statement Apple have not apologised at all, and therefore not complied with the spirit of the ruling.

As an aside I find it interesting that a lot of people are struggling with this concept of 'spirit'. This is something that has featured prevalently in the law training I've had over the years so it seems natural to me: breaking the spirit of the law is punishable as well as breaking the letter; more of a principles based approach to enforcement. However it seems that some (USA?) people regard the law as a set of rules that can be scrutinised for loopholes and ambiguities that when found are fair game.

Is law genuinely taught differently in the USA? Or is this just an example of a bad Apple (sic) acting accordingly?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure