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

 



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:Yes, but it won't happen any time soon (Score 1) 119

Streep is an exception (and good for her if she can still pull in that kind of money.) Most actors don't pull in anything like that amount of money, and even those that are able to pull in six digits or, occasionally, seven, digits per movie do so usually knowing they have a shelf life, and that Hollywood will discard them when they get into their 30s. At that point, many know they'll be difficult to hire in any other professions, as they just devoted much of their lives to a single profession, and have no skills outside of that, and have fame as an added handicap.

20 million, incidentally, is dirt cheap for a modern movie (to put it into perspective, the pilot episode of the 2000 TV series Dark Angel cost that much), and the right star can be the difference between a $60-250M movie (which is more the ballpark) either making a loss, or making an outrageous profit. The ticket price, which seems to have held steady at around $10 per adult for the last 20 years now, is what the market has determined is what people will pay, so that's not going to come down if studios were to cut actors salaries. So... why complain about this, specifically? If they're the ones making the movies profitable, and if the money's there, why not let them have a cut?

Comment Re:Just Remember, Folks. (Score 1) 169

They're announcing this shortly before the Model 3 goes into production, which will be a mid-budget vehicle.

(Also worth noting: the AutoPilot++ or whatever it's called, the version that's supposedly SAE 5 level that'll be released before the end of the year, isn't free. It's an extra people will have to pay for. If you assume SDC technology will reduce accidents by 66%, and if regular insurance is $1000 a year, then they need to price this at around $3,000 assuming a normal average ten year lifespan of each vehicle. IIRC that was the ball park for the price for the SDC add-on they're going for, so this is quite believable. You're not paying for the technology - that's already paid for, you're buying insurance for the lifetime of the vehicle.

Comment Just to add useful information (Score 5, Informative) 63

Alphabet are alleging they have specific evidence the former employee downloaded the designs to a laptop, which he then tried to wipe to hide any trace he'd done this. Alphabet are also alleging the same former employee actually bragged about what he was going to do before he did it.

So... assuming they're not lying, this is pretty much open and shut. I guess we'll find out over the next few weeks.

Comment Re:so non dealer service or not paying for softwar (Score 2) 247

Sometimes the user is at fault. Maybe that means not updating software. Maybe that means after-market software or hardware modifications. Maybe that means extreme neglect of maintenance leading to mechanical failure (which happens now with non-self driving cars), assuming that self-maintaining cars will be way off in the future.

Not only can this be out of the user's control, it should be. The car should be constantly monitoring itself, and the car - being self driven - is capable of driving itself to be serviced, or calling a tow truck if it isn't capable of driving, with core functionality disabled if the car detects a state that means it can't guarantee a safe journey.

There's absolutely no reason not to take this out of the hands of the car "owner". The car doesn't have to be capable of servicing itself, it just needs to be capable of getting qualified people to provide that servicing.

Comment Re:The owner should be liable (Score 1) 247

So in other words, you believe Truth in Advertising laws should be overturned? If someone advertises a car as self driving, the consumer should be on the hook for believing them?

If a car is self driving, the manufacturer is making a claim they should stand behind. The consumer shouldn't be blamed for a fault they could not possibly predict or know about.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 247

I'm not following. At worst, you'd expect the additional costs to be equal to, or less than (if the manufacturer believes their cars are less likely to get into an accident, or that the accidents will be lesser in cost, than a human car) to the cost of the liability insurance human-driven car owners pay.

So anyone looking at a self driving car vs a regular car will see a lower TCO, all other things being equal. In reality, right now the SDC will cost slightly more due to the cost of the actual driving equipment, but what we're looking at here is something that brings the cost down, not pushes it up.

Comment Re:Awesome (Score 1) 195

It really depends on the algorithm. This is apparently about the type of language used, not the opinions expressed. If the algorithm mostly removes one word replies like "Fucktard", and leaves in place "I respectfully disagree with you that Mr Trump's policies will have the effect you describe", then, well, it's fine. What's the problem?

What I find interesting right now is that the word "Toxic" is used to describe the kinds of comments that'll be removed, and immediately rather a lot of people on Slashdot (not you) immediately assume it's anything that's anti-StrawJW.

Kinda tells you something about the people who use the term "SJW" to describe opponents of their own beliefs, doesn't it.

Comment Re:written in Go (Score 1) 58

Given Go is a mainstream language without anything unusual about it, and given that's pretty much well known, I'd say most programmers wouldn't consider it a barrier. The programmers that do? Probably the people who aren't going to contribute to an open source project in the first place.

Why do I say this? Well, because you either love programming or you don't. If you do, then yes, open source is interesting to you, and no, you're not going to be put off by having to use a language you're only 90% familiar with (because, like I said, for non-LISP/Prolog/etc programming languages, you're already 90% familiar with them), you'll consider that a feature, not a bug.

What might put a programmer off contributing to a project because of the language is if the language is unpleasant or a chore to use, not if the language is not something they've used before. But Go isn't that either.

I'm a developer too. I've been in this profession for nearly 25 years, and been programming since I was 10 years old. If something can be modified and the source is available, I tend to play with it, regardless of the language. I really suspect most of us are the same way. Those who aren't... well, do you think they're really interested in open source?

Comment Re:the laws may take 3-5 years to get rid of drive (Score 2) 122

Quite, the same thing happened when they started to introduce human driven motor vehicles in place of the horse powered vehicles in the late 19th Century. A few lawsuits later, and nobody wanted to drive cars any more because of the risk. That's why we're stuck with horse and buggies in 2017, and nobody has gasoline or electrically powered motor vehicles.

(The concept you're looking for is "Insurance".)

Comment Re:written in Go (Score 2) 58

I don't think real developers care. As long as it's not written in LISP or some other language that's radically different from normal paradigms, and as long as the development environment is just a matter of checking some options in their favorite IDE, most programmers will be entirely happy.

You grossly underestimate the ability of decent programmers to switch from language to language. What we care about is not whether a language is rarely used, but whether it can do what we need it to easily and quickly - and whether the libraries are easily googlelable of course.

Go is a mainstream language, if a little basic. It's fine. That won't be the problem.

Slashdot Top Deals

The next person to mention spaghetti stacks to me is going to have his head knocked off. -- Bill Conrad

Working...