Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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 what happens in a race to the bottom? (Score 4, Insightful) 467

Speaking as as big Amazon spender who does practically no shopping at Wal-Mart brick and mortar or online, the very best thing that can happen is that Wal-Mart will hold their own in this war. One thing we know is that when faced with a virtual monopoly in any field or domain, large corporations will screw over the consumer again and again.

Comment Re:The self-driving car is blamed for human error (Score 1) 227

The most hilarious part of that wiki entry is the Virginia proposal requiring drivers to rapidly disassemble their car and hide the parts behind bushes at the first sign of livestock. Would have become law if not vetoed by the Governor.

It fascinates me that we haven't really progressed at all as a species in 120 years. People will be up in arms at the first sign of autonomous vehicles crashing, even if and when they're literally proven to be say 100x safer than humans. You will have websites popping up with virtually every autonomous car crash listed accompanied by grizzly photos and conspiracy forums with like-minded loons swearing that they're spawned by the devil. Politicians will write crazy laws that effectively ban them. Then a few years will pass and society will move on. Rinse and repeat for the next technology to intrude into our lives.

Comment Re:if it were cheaper, yes. (Score 1) 331

Don't necessarily disagree, but the problem is that often externalities (like pollution, cost of healthcare, etc.) are not paid for by incumbent technology/solution. Due to historical reasons, grandfathering, lax regulations and whatnot, the cost of the incumbent solution is artificially low which means any possible solution *looks* more expensive in comparison, even if it's cheaper overall.

Comment Re:Cost of not innovating? (Score 1) 31

Sorry, but the math doesn't support your view that Intel was better off spending $15B on this acquisition at this late stage versus actually having an innovation program internally or purchasing a whole slew of early bets (most of which don't pay off.)

MobileEye today only has about 500 employees, of which maybe half are Engineers. It's likely that only a small team of ~30-50 was involved in building out the majority of the technology that makes up the core of its IP. With $15B, Intel could have funded 200 fifty person teams, each for a full decade. Given that the investment would have been done over time and various investing and culling strategies would have been employed, even with a very small success rate, I contend that Intel could have researched their way to early leadership in the autonomous vehicle market and maybe a dozen others with the same level of investment they poured into MobilEye.

Comment Cost of not innovating? (Score 2) 31

Let's say the average full-time Engineer costs $150k/year (all in, including health care and benefits). For $15B, Intel could have employed 10,000 such Engineers for a whole decade for the amount of money they spent on this questionable acquisition. Now you know what the cost of not spending on R&D is.

Comment Re:Yeah, with a fucking asterisk (Score 2, Insightful) 171

Do you also stand at the door at parties to offer couples the odds of them remaining together long-term?

Relax dude, most human beings understand that if the company they get insurance from stops existing, they no longer have insurance from that company. If you don't trust that company, then um don't buy insurance from them?

Comment Re:Meaningless (Score 4, Interesting) 67

The list of Tesla's enemies is long. It's very difficult to find a dispassionate analysis of their situation because you have several state governments, possibly the federal government (with it's anti-EPA EPA chief), dozens of state automobile dealership associations, the Big 3 automakers, practically the entire oil and gas industry, hydrogen fuel cell purveyors, wall street short sellers and generally a chunk of uninformed alt-right types -- all with vested interests in seeing it fail.

Then you have those who believe that the stock is already worth buying at practically any multiple, Musk can make no mistakes and builds golden space chariots.

The reality is they have a big set of tasks ahead of them, and they've made their share of mistakes along the way, but on the big items, they've proven themselves several times over. Long-term, I think they're in pretty good shape, assuming they can achieve volume manufacturing of the Model 3 (~5k cars per week) within the next 12 months.

At this point in its history, anyone offering unqualified strongly positive or negative sentiment regarding Tesla's position have vested interests in play or else are simply trolls not to be taken seriously.

Comment Re:the future of Mozilla (Score 1) 236

Well, I use Firefox. It's relatively stable these days, plus I don't have to keep checking my eye sockets to determine whether my eyeballs have been sold to the highest bidder -- which is more than I can say for most alternatives these days. Plus, with a small user base, it's become less of a target for malware authors too. Win-win if you ask me.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 53

> Malware unfriendliness is user unfriendliness

Really? So in your version of email utopia, people should just be able to send executable code to other people and have the code just run because any other option would be user-unfriendly? Blocking executable code is the right thing to do 99.9% of the time. Developers can bloody well use password protected zips and whatnot to share code. Boo hoo, the geek 1% is *so* inconvenienced by the dumb 99.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.

Working...