Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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:Why stop at $50? (Score 1) 73

I would gladly pay $50 for a dozen or so movies per year so I don't need to spend $50+ per night on a babysitter.

Jesus man, take your wife out once in a while, will you? She probably loves the fact that you can hire a babysitter and get a night out without the kids. At least that was my experience when my kid was young enough to need a babysitter.

Comment Re:Why stop at $50? (Score 1) 73

You have to have 5 people watching the movie to get any value out of this service. Many theaters are less than that, around $8-9/ticket - now you have to bring over more than 6 people to get the value. I'm sure some people find comfort and possibly value in the possibility of sitting in their underwear while lounging and watching the latest movies

If you're lounging with 6 people in your underwear, you're probably not paying that much attention to the movie.

Comment Re:Well yeah (Score 1) 200

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:Fake News (Score 1) 247

Not all of the fake reporters have those aims. Some of them simply want ad views, lots and lots of ad views. Making up news is a good way to get them. If you post a story titled "Trump's issues order permitting execution of illegal immigrants" or "Obama's secret terror cells in the white house' or 'Kim Kardashian to perform televised surgery" you are going to get a lot of views.

Comment Re:Stupid, stupid questions (Score 1) 200

This. Exactly this.

Nobody experiences fear weekly about losing their job to a robot" unless they are mentally unstable, or they are literally in the midst of an automation wave in their own company and they are watching coworkers get let go.

Hell... even the cashiers at mcdonalds or the grocery store who are literally watching them install self-serve checkouts a few feet away don't worry weekly about losing their jobs to robots.

Comment Re: Thanks. Mr. Obvious (Score 1) 225

Sorry, but that doesn't work. It works for batteries, because YOU are the one inconvenienced if the battery dies. But if the company bears the liability even if you are the owner, then the company isn't going to be willing to allow you to own the car. Not without a huge up-front payment. (The car may drive ever so safely, but accidents will happen, and legal judgments sometimes ignore facts.) I suppose it might turn out that the legal owner was the bank rather than the auto company, but it won't be the presumptive purchaser.

And I'm not sure I see a reasonable way around this. Automated cars are already so automated that people can't manage to pay attention to what's happening (see Ford engineers sleeping). So the liability *has* to be with the auto company. But if the liability is with them, then they're going to need to retain control so they can fix problems, ensure maintenance, etc. And that's an on-going expense...so they need to ensure either an on-going cash flow, or a sufficiently large initial payment...and it works better for responsible action if it's an on-going cash flow that the payer can get out of for good cause.

So I think that either the liability stays with the auto company, and so does the ownership, or the company only sells an initial period of liability coverage with renewal options and ownership (and control) lies with the individual. And the second option has all kinds of traps and potholes in it...probably more than the first.

Android

Google Renames Messenger To Android Messages as the Company Pushes RCS (betanews.com) 58

We have come a long way from the age of flip phones and nine-key texting. Even as if group messaging and instant messengers took over, the SMS has largely retained its core standard over the years. Google wants to change that, and for this, it has been working with hundreds of carriers and manufacturers around the world to bring the text message into the 21st century. Using a standard called Rich Communications Services, the group plans to make a texting app that comes with your phone and is every bit as powerful as those dedicated messaging apps. This would make all the best features available to everyone with an Android phone. From a report on BetaNews: Just last week we were talking about Google's championing of RCS (Rich Communication Services), the successor to SMS. Now the company has renamed its Messenger app to Android Messages as it aims to become not just the default SMS app, but the default RCS app for Android users. Part of the reason for the name change is to convey the idea that the app is now about more than just one type of message. Google is betting big on RCS and this is hinted at in the app update description which says it adds "Simpler sign-up for enhanced features on supported carriers."

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...