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


Forgot your password?
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: Fake News (Score 1) 228

Natural Diamonds and Artificial Diamonds are indistinguishable, except for the fact that an Artificial one is technically superior in just about every way one could judge a diamond. They are also VERY easy to produce, and in VERY large sizes that are nearly impossible to find naturally. This makes the whole Natural vs Artificial argument really stupid.

A diamond is a diamond. It takes special tools to find imperfections in the natural diamonds for even "experts" to tell the difference.

Comment Re:Fake News (Score 1) 228

Considering the engines provided a max of around 22,000 pounds of thrust and the plane weighed around 30,000 pounds empty, the brick strapped to a rocket analogy is inaccurate. The aerodynamics work, if there is a rapid enough input to deal with the rapid changes in airflow. The same has been the case since at least the F-14; the F-117 was just an extreme case. Modern fighters are even less statically stable than the Nighthawk was. It's what gives them their maneuverability.

Comment Re:Stop the presses! Someone in IT fucked up! (Score 1) 129

Yes, they do provide birth control. I never said they didn't. You can even get condoms there, does that mean they can claim they are a male health care provider like they claim they are a "women's healthcare provider" because they perform abortions and give out birth control?

To me, a woman's health center would be more concerned about actual health of women. Abortion is very hard on a woman's body, and there is plenty of documented studies that show this. Not that PP would ever tell you the long term risks of abortion on women.

Comment Re:Guilty, I'd say (Score 1) 59

While I agree with your conclusion, I would say that he wasn't "capable" because he was a manager, regardless of his previous status which could have been engineer. I am half convinced there is a secret to getting into management from an actual work position. Based on my own boss's progress, I am convinced that he went to an actual "Dilbert School of Management" and got his PhB degree. I turn to Dilbert every day to see what is his next plan.

Comment Re:Thanks. Mr. Obvious (Score 2) 202

It's not about dodging liability, but defining what that liability actually is, and where the blame should lie. An accident caused by worn out breaks is not a "defect" in the sense that the manufacturer is to blame, or should carry the cost. An accident caused by the software misinterpreting a very common situation clearly is. But what if the car gets hacked? One may be able to apply exising laws there: did the manufacturer take all precautions, adhere to good coding practices and security standards, did they vet and test 3rd party libraries and keep them up to date, have thorough security audits and testing? If so, a judge may well decide that the car manufacturer cannot be held to blame any more than they can be held to blame for sabotage like cut brake lines.

What about a case where the car's software makes a mistake because of a combination of very unusual atmospheric and situational circumstances? At first these will probably all be on the car manufacturer's insurance, but when it becomes clearer what the capabilities and shortcomings of such cars actually are, a judge might rule that some accidents are due to unfortunate circumstances rather than the manufacturer's fault. We'll probably need a new law to determine whose insurance should pay in that case.

Comment Re:Thanks. Mr. Obvious (Score 1) 202

The laws menstioned in the article already provide some examples: when the owner tampers with the vehicle, fails to have it serviced properly, or doesn't install critical software updates. There are some other examples, depending on your local laws. Here in the Netherlands, in accidents involving a car and a bike or pedestrian, the car owner is always held liable (not responsible, but liable) unless they can show intent or gross negligence by the other party, which almost never happens. Not looking while crossing the road or not having proper lights on a bicycle doesn't count, for example. Without getting into the rights and wrongs of such a rule, it does mean that not all of the liability for accidents involving SDCs can be shifted to the manufacturer, if it can be shown that such cars can not reasonably be expected to account for all possible misconduct by other road users.

But like the GP I expect that the point will quickly become moot: if the accident rates drop far enough, car insurance will take the form of regular 3rd part liability insurance (price of a few cups of coffee)

Comment Re: The US ranks with Mexico? (Score 0, Insightful) 91

Nah, it's because the rich don't want to pay Americans what they're worth. They'd rather import illegals to work for $5/hour cash and ignore the labor laws, safety laws, overtime laws, etc. It's pure selfishness as well as disgust at the vile deplorable American people. It ain't ordinary folks who benefit from illegals.

Comment Re:Thanks. Mr. Obvious (Score 1) 202

I don't have much of a problem with that, as long as they put in legislation to govern what they can do with the data and with whom they can share it. And few legislators show a decent understanding of privacy-related issues; they either say "can't collect that", or "now that we have the data anyway, lets..." Most countries already have laws that state data cannot be used for purposes other than those for which it was gathered, but in the age of IoT, isn't it time for additional laws that force companies to narrow down those stated purposes, instead of letting them get away with "purpose of collection is whatever we say it is".

And what about law enforcement? Will they only get access to data on specific individuals, and only with a judge's permission? Which such a smorgasbord of data it'll be too tempting to ask for wider access Because terrorists. Or to issue speeding tickets. What about other government agencies? They might want to check on people as well and see if they aren't cheating on their taxes. Once you go down that slippery slope, the discussion will focus entirely on ways we can use this data to catch what are essentially wrongdoers, privacy considerations will not be a factor. And then we haven't even touched upon the issue of oversight.

So come to think of it, I do have a problem with that... Looking at the people and the discussion in Parliament here and elsewhere in Europe, I have little faith in adequate legislation being drafted anytime soon (though Germany might be the exception).

Submission + - Malaysian Police: VX nerve gas killed N Korea leader's brother in airport attack (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Malaysian police have announced their finding that Kim Jong Nam, half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jon Un, was killed by assassins using VX nerve gas in an attack in the busy Kuala Lumpur airport. Malaysian authorities plan to decontaminate the airport and other sites visited by the attackers. Police are holding the two female attackers, one of whom was affected by the chemical agent, as well as two other men. They are seeking seven more North Koreans connected to the case. VX is the most toxic of the nerve gasses and the UN has declared it a weapon of mass destruction. The manufacture and stockpiling of more than 100 grams of VX per year is prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. It has no commercial uses. The Malaysian police are trying to discover if it was smuggled into their country, or manufactured there. The Malaysian government has recalled its ambassador to North Korea for consultation. North Korea is blaming the death of Kim Jong Nam on Malaysia. North Korea is believed to have major stockpiles of chemical weapons, and is alleged to conduct experiments on prisoners and social undesirables.

Comment Re:its in public (Score 1) 123

technology gets more powerful it also gets more intrusive

Technology is invasive the moment it becomes pervasive.

You and I said the same thing. As a Libertarian, I would suggest to you a (singular) camera is invasive, but accepted. A thousand cameras owned by the state is in fact a violation of constitutional guarantees against UNREASONABLE searches. Is it really unreasonable to be free from observation in a "Free" society?

Think about it for a second, the very thing we made fun of in the USSR is happening today, and both liberals and conservatives are arguing for more of the same surveillance state.

The difference between a single picture from 1970 by my dad on a camera at Disneyland is clearly not the same thing as the government being able to watch me travel from my home to Disneyland on all the cameras lined all the way there and back. Once is inconvenience, a hundred thousand frames is observation. Somewhere along that long line, it stops being expectation of not being filmed and one of expectation of being filmed at any given moment.

Comment Re:Instrument calibration (Score 1) 291

When insturment calibration is examined, both the unadjusted and adjusted values should be available as raw and "corrected" results. When the "raw" data is discarded, there is no ability to re-examine that data, and all we are left with is the "adjusted" data that is unproven. This is scientific heresy of the greatest kind.

In other words, it isn't science if the adulterated results cannot be replicated for the original data, because it no longer exists. I mean it isn't like scientists to fudge data to get the results they were looking for ... ever. Never happens. Ever.

Comment Re: s/drug trials/climate change/g (Score 1) 291

"records" in modern human terms. But failure to mention "other" records like the hurricane lull in the Atlantic is quickly forgotten. After all, "MORE EXTREME WEATHER" should have produced more and more extreme hurricanes .... but those simply haven't appeared.

I have no doubt carbon is increasing, I have plenty of doubt that it is actually "bad" for the planet. It might be bad for humans, but I am pretty sure plants love it. More plants = more life.

Slashdot Top Deals

No one gets sick on Wednesdays.