Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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 This has nothing to do with the original article! (Score 1) 108

The former Conservative government decided that for the second largest country by area, it would be a good idea to centralize all Information Technology services, and called it Shared Services Canada (SSC). This is wrong in so many ways...first of all, having all IT services centralized means that you have a single point of failure. Add to that, SSC may have their own priorities that may leave you sitting for weeks and months waiting for installation, configuration and implementation all sorts of IT technologies. It used to be that each department of the Government of Canada could set up their internal services, as long as they conformed to a set of guidelines, and the equipment was bought from government approved vendors who had standing offers with the government.

Now, SSC has become one of the worst BOFH, and everyone suffers.

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 Re:Well yeah (Score 1) 359

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) 359

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) 248

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) 248

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?

Submission + - The race for autonomous cars is over. Silicon Valley lost. (autoblog.com)

schwit1 writes: Up until very recently the talk in Silicon Valley was about how the tech industry was going to broom Detroit into the dustbin of history. Companies such as Apple, Google, and Uber — so the thinking went -were going to out run, out gun, and out innovate the automakers. Today that talk is starting to fade. There's a dawning realization that maybe there's a good reason why the traditional car companies have been around for more than a century.

Last year Apple laid off most of the engineers it hired to design its own car. Google (now Waymo) stopped talking about making its own car. And Uber, despite its sky high market valuation, is still a long, long way from ever making any money, much less making its own autonomous cars.

To paraphrase Elon Musk, Silicon Valley is learning that "Making rockets is hard, but making cars is really hard." People outside of the auto industry tend to have a shallow understanding of how complex the business really is. They think all you have to do is design a car and start making it. But most startups never make it past the concept car stage because the move to mass production proves too daunting.

Comment Re:That's what you get for wording the DMCA that w (Score 2) 81

Legally defined bad faith is hard to prove. We would need some metric, like number or proportion of bogus requests where bad faith is legally presumed. Of course, if a reasonable person hearing/viewing the target of the takedown knows it isn't the complainant's property, that too should be presumed to be bad faith..

Slashdot Top Deals

The disks are getting full; purge a file today.

Working...