Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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! ×

Ford Just Invested $1 Billion In Self-Driving Cars ( 113

An anonymous reader quote USA Today: Ford Motor is betting $1 billion on the world's self-driving car future. The Detroit automaker announced Friday that it would allocate that sum over five years to a new autonomous car startup called Argo AI, which is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pa., and will have offices in Michigan and California. Ford's financial outlay is part of a continuing investment strategy anchored to transforming the car and truck seller into a mobility company with a hand in ride-hailing, ride-sharing and even bicycle rentals.
Lucas123 writes: Argo AI founders CEO Bryan Salesky, and COO Peter Rander are alumni of Carnegie Mellon National Robotics Engineering Center and former leaders on the self-driving car teams of Google and Uber, respectively. Argo AI's team will include roboticists and engineers from inside and outside of Ford working to develop a new software platform for Ford's fully autonomous vehicle, expected in 2021. Ford said it could also license the software to other carmakers.

Comment Re:Darn (Score 2) 157

I removed "social justice" because it didn't apply in the context. I was talking about the same behavior you claim to be against, but are fine with when it's your precious little tribe doing it.

Also they're not "my" congressional shit birds, because I'm not a Democrat, or a liberal. But I have to say that you're behaving an awful lot like the kind of whiny little tumblrite that makes other whiny little tumblrites shriek "essjaydubya!" as if it actually meant something.

Comment Re:I don't think so (Score 1) 456

Yes, I can indeed suggest exactly that [Sigourney Weaver couldn't have chemistry with Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford].

Then you're wrong, and also you never saw Working Girl.

Especially since she is seven years older than Carrie Fisher was.

So what? Nothing about Leia required that she be exactly 19 years old (no, not even the fact that she's Luke's twin, because that was decided much later). Making Leia slightly older than Luke would only further underscore his fascination with her. And of course, actors play characters younger than themselves all the time. They're typically very healthy and good-looking people, and makeup is a thing. Age would not have been a real barrier here.

[Meryl Streep] Would have rendered Star Wars unwatchable. She is utterly the wrong personality type for Leia

You don't know what Meryl Streep's personality type is. What you think of as her "personality" is only a composite of roles that she's played over the years that you've mushed together in your head. And the overwhelming majority of those roles came AFTER Star Wars was released, so it's not like you can even argue that they would have conflicted with her existing image.

Carrie Fisher was a good fit for the role, no question. But if you think that literally nobody else could have done well with it, then you're not being objective.

Comment Re:I don't think so (Score 1) 456

Remember they would have had to triangulate between [the director], the script, and the other actors...

That is a challenge, but not one unique to the role of Leia. So I can state with confidence that lots of other actresses could handle that challenge, because they already have handled it, repeatedly and to great effect. There's no magical Venn-diagram of "performer traits" and "traits needed to be Leia" in which Carrie Fisher was the sole inhabitant of the overlap.

You make it sound like it was easy to do what she did in Star Wars when frankly if you read much about the shooting of Star Wars seems rather not true.

I didn't make it sound like it was easy. Nothing I said implied that. "More than one person could have done this job" does not equate to "this job was easy".

Any other name you put up would either have no chemistry, have quit or hung herself after a week.

Any other name? Come on. Would you suggest that Sigourney Weaver couldn't have chemistry with Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford, or that Meryl Streep couldn't handle the stress of making a Star Wars movie? If not then your claim is meaningless, and if so I'll start laughing now and avoid the rush.

Say what now? I had no particular counterpoint in mind. What point did you make that you expected a counter for? Or do you mean something about the prequels? I don't really see how that's relevant as the situation is so different...

It wasn't directed at you specifically, more at anyone in general who would have said "But what about Hannibal Lecter/Indiana Jones/whoever?". Because the same point applies to those characters too; yes, so-and-so did a wonderful job, but there are other people who would also have done a wonderful job.

Comment Re:I don't think so (Score 3, Insightful) 456

Generally your post is spot-on, but this?

Any other actress would have mangled the part.

I'm sorry, but no. There are plenty of actresses who could have done as fine a job as Carrie Fisher did, and in each of the alternate universes where one of them got the part, you're thinking of Fisher as one of the also-rans would would have "mangled" the role. The fact that other actresses could have done well does not in any way lessen the fact that she did an excellent job, so let's not dehumanize the lady by putting her up on a pedestal that she probably wouldn't have wanted in any case.

And really, that's true of every single role we associate with a particular actor. Yes, even that one you're about to bring up as a counterpoint.

Comment Re:TV BS (Score 1) 220

TV shows no longer reflect real life. Every show has to be what libs perceive as PC, a certain number of gays, diverse ethnic backgrounds, even transgenders are showing up. Audiences do not like having this distorted version of reality shoved down their throats.

You're implying that there was a time when TV shows did reflect real life. There wasn't.

Go watch some 50's sitcoms with the little wife putting on pearls and a nice dress to do housework. That wasn't reality, it was a wishful projection that reflected the political correctness of the time. Anyone who thinks "libs" are the only ones pushing political correctness doesn't understand what the term means.

Slashdot Top Deals

What ever you want is going to cost a little more than it is worth. -- The Second Law Of Thermodynamics