Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:What the actual fuck (Score 2) 201

You can patent the design of a paper bag though. This doesn't stop people making paper bags in general, but it does stop others from using the exact same design.

This is called a "design patent". Utility patents, which are probably what you're thinking of, are the ones that require novelty and non-obviousness.

The submitter and/or editor are either ignorant of this or being intentionally misleading.

Comment Re:Those jobs aren't coming back in 10 years (Score 2) 77

+1. Many years ago my brother worked as a pizza delivery driver for a bit of extra income. We sat down and worked out the expenses, and found out he was basically breaking even. Most people have no idea how expensive it is to operate a car. I suspect Uber and Lyft drivers are in the same boat.

Comment Re:What is there to protect? (Score 1) 204

I agree. The article conflates two separate issues: 1) the hacking of voting machines and 2) the leaking of DNC emails. The first is a real problem that needs to be avoided because it is a direct attack on a democracy.

But the hacking of the DNC servers led to more transparency and a more informed public, who were made aware of corruption within the Democratic Party. These are good things. Hopefully future DNC leaders will think twice before acting this way, and if they continue to do these things, hopefully there will be more leaks. The long-term result is that it makes the Democrats, and the US political system in general, better.

Sure, the DNC leak was a "biased" attack on one party, but so is any news article. Why does it matter if the information came from Russian hackers, an internal whistleblower, or the free press?

Comment Re:It's how you define the 'utility function' (Score 1) 609

Counter-aguments to policy proposals would also fall under the same rules. So for example the idea of putting everyone in jail would easily be shot down by someone explaining that this would destroy economic output (and individual liberty, and many other things obviously). Neither the argument for the proposal, nor the counter-argument against it, need to be based on religious texts.

Comment Re:It's how you define the 'utility function' (Score 1) 609

Actually I have read the Old Testament. Sorry to say but I would not want to be part of a society based on its teachings. Have you ever read the Book of Deuteronomy? I honestly think that many ideas in it are morally disgusting.

Religion doesn't need to provide the basis for any policy argument. The Old Testament isn't entirely bad, but any good social policy that it describes can be justified without resorting to "it's good because this book says so". If a policy argument is entirely based on the Talmud, then we've got a problem.

Comment Re:It's how you define the 'utility function' (Score 4, Interesting) 609

The same thing holds true for public policy. Do you want "most lives saved?" Do you want "greatest economic output?" Do you want "Least tax burden?"

So independent of any other consideration, there is huge judgement and therefore huge variation when trying to conduct 'rational policy' by what you choose as your utility function.

It sure would be nice to have a universal utility function for all public policy. But in the meantime, what if we just said that any of those (lives saved, economic output, lower tax burden) are an acceptable foundation for you to base an argument on, but "because my ancient book of sacred texts says so" isn't?

This wouldn't lead to 100% logical consistency in policy, but it would surely be an improvement over the current system, don't you think?

Comment Re:Still better than the status quo (Score 1) 451

The exploitability thing is an interesting problem, but that's not what the article is about. It specifically talks about a "no-win situation" where the car has to choose between innocent pedestrians and innocent passengers. It also has a well-defined definition of ethics - utilitarian - which they found matches up well with what most of their survey respondents consider to be ethical.

I never said that nothing could go wrong, I said that the problem raised by the article is a non-problem.

Comment Still better than the status quo (Score 1) 451

So most people think that it's good to sacrifice a passenger in order to save many pedestrians, but they wouldn't want the car to sacrifice them. It's clear then that if they were the driver in their own car, they would choose to save themselves rather than the 10 pedestrians they are about to mow down.

There are two future possibilities then:

1. Self-driving cars will sacrifice the driver, which means they will be programmed to be more ethical than they are today.
2. Self-driving cars will sacrifice the pedestrians, which is the same as what drivers do today.

Either way we're not any worse off, so what's the problem?

Comment Re:Whut? (Score 4, Informative) 365


The P position in an automatic gearbox engages what is known as a "parking pawl". The handbrake is the primary brake, and the parking pawl is the secondary brake, in case the handbrake fails.

Parking pawls are flimsy, and constant use will wear out transmission components, making it even more dangerous to rely on. Use your handbrake!

Comment Re:Guns (Score 1) 1718

Actually they do protect Paris, a lot. Mass shootings don't happen nearly every day in France, but they do in the US.

I think the source of your confusion is that you're comparing two countries by looking at two rare events that were both essentially statistical anomalies. France's firearm-related death rate is 2.83 per 100,000 people per year, vs 10.54 in the US. And their overall murder rate is also less than a third of what it is here.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Who cares if it doesn't do anything? It was made with our new Triple-Iso-Bifurcated-Krypton-Gate-MOS process ..."