Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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:Just Remember, Folks. (Score 1) 123

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) 62

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) 239

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) 239

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) 239

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:The owner should be liable (Score 1) 239

Regardless of whom the law holds responsible, this is going to be an actuarial nightmare for the insurance company. A manufacturer might have a stellar track record for decades, then one day a security update introduces a bug that causes a lot of crashes. How can the insurance companies take account of that in their pricing?

Comment Re:Awesome (Score 1) 190

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:motivation (Score 4, Insightful) 187

"Another manager threatened to beat an underperforming employee's head in with a baseball bat."

Now, that's what must be a highly motivating work environment :/

One must wonder how their hiring process works, i.e. letting such characters through the gates, since recent reports don't paint a pretty picture.

It's not the hiring process that's creating the problem, it's senior management. Management would have heard about the incident (or similar ones), and they had the ability to discipline both the manager to grabbed the baseball bat as well as his manager who didn't do anything about it. Instead they let the incident go, perhaps even laughing about it and treating it as an example of a passionate manager motivating his people.

It's like corruption in Russia, they didn't get that way by hiring corrupt government officials, they got that way by demonstrating, at the very top, that corruption was tolerated. That same baseball bat manager might have been a perfectly decent manager in a different organization, or weeded out if he couldn't play along, but put in an organization that didn't restrain his tendencies he becomes a menace.

Comment Re:s/drug trials/climate change/g (Score 1) 313

The purpose of peer review is to identify incorrect theories and throw them out.

Not even that much, really. You can't generally detect an incorrect theory in a paper you're reviewing.

Basically peer review can only ensure that the authors have done their homework, are aware of all the other relevant literature, explain themselves clearly, thought of obvious problems and alternative explanations, and don't invoke any logical fallacies.

In practice a lot of it gets dedicated to a grad student who can't even do that much.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can't go home again, unless you set $HOME.

Working...