Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:Bullshit, Todd. (Score 3, Insightful) 183

The problem is they are not suing over the mistake made by the clinic, but that the child has the wrong genes.

The kid having the wrong genes is the direct fruit of the clinic's malpractice. It's no different than a baby being dropped on its head by the doctor. You don't sue ONLY for the mistake, you sue for the consequences of the mistake. Two parents decide to merge their DNA and make a baby. They do so knowing their, and their families' histories. The clinic chooses to negligently upend that planning with an unknown set of consequences - and robbing the parents of having allowed the father to contribute his traits to the child they've chosen to make. The ramifications are numerous, both emotionally and quite possibly medically, intellectually, etc., for the child. You can't separate the negligence from the life-long consequences.

Comment Re:Non-starter 'flying car' (Score 2) 147

Yeah. Clients are always kind of shocked at the downdraft created when I use mid-sized hex to lift a camera while we're shooting some video. And that's something that weighs, oh, 15 pounds. It takes a LOT of moving air to keep a suitcase or a watermelon hovering in the air. To say nothing of my over-two-hundred-pounds and my passenger and the thing we're sitting in. NOT back yard material, here, never mind the enormous racket it's going to make.

Comment Re:Wonderful news ... (Score 1) 176

Does anybody want to have to compete? Some do, but most people are lazy and want stuff for free, including customers. The government should be out of that loop. Lacking the ACA's forcing me to do business with my choice of two vendors who are themselves forced to replicate their businesses and all of their overhead in fifty different states, that should all be torn down.

Comment What is with these headlines? (Score 1, Informative) 341

I know it's hardly a new complaint, but Slashdot's recent trend towards not merely provocative but 100%-contrary-to-the-facts-of-the-matter headlines is really getting ridiculous.

Yes, the city/state government could have spent a bunch of money to "give the fastest internet for free" to the people inside the urban bounds of Chattanooga. OR, they could use that money to make it worth the providers' time to extend that lovely fast service out in to the surrounding areas that have no access at all. Which is what they're doing. They didn't "give" the money to the infrastructure people. They're funding an expansion of the infrastructure into areas of the state where the availability of such business offerings will eventually do a lot to grow the state's economy and tax base. The headline is very and deliberately misleading. We can certainly debate whether or not TN should be spending money in this way, but that's not the same as purposefully misrepresenting the situation in a fit of juvenile clickbaiting. Knock it off, Slashdot.

Comment Re:I find your lack of faith disturbing... (Score 1) 388

With automobile pilots we tolerate faulty humans whose decision-making processes we absolutely don't understand such that car crashes don't even make the news, but every car AI pilot fender bender will "raise deep questions about the suitability of robots to drive cars."

If AI is better than humans, then fewer people will die in cars. Period.

Comment Re:I find your lack of faith disturbing... (Score 1) 388

It is all about past experience. If some humans drive well then we predict they will continue to drive well and give them an insurance discount. If they drive poorly, we charge them a lot for insurance, under the prediction that they will continue to have more crashes. If a particular AI has a better driving record than humans, then it would be logical to give it a lower insurance rate, based on past experience. We don't have to know the details of how the human brain works to predict these things, and we shouldn't need the exact details about how the AI works to predict its behaviour. Better is better.

Slashdot Top Deals

panic: kernel trap (ignored)