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. ×

Comment Re: Advertising/Commercials Killed TV (Score 1) 198

Without commercials TV shows would have to be purchased.. this would make it more expensive. In addition, consumers will have no means to know about useful products and services. Without that, product sales will reduce. When there is less trading, there is less employment. When there is less employment few people can afford the TV shows. This will cause TV show revenue to decrease, resulting in poorer quality tv shows.
Anyway what I am saying is that I hate advertising as much as the next guy but long term suffering through a few ads may actually be beneficial to society and yourself.

Comment Re: This is dumb (Score 1) 198

That was because they were getting hammered by peer to peer file sharing services like Napster and Kazaa, eMule, and and whole bunch of others whose name I forgot. Everyone was downloading their music illegally and CD sales were plummeting. The content owners are not going to allow TV to be reinvented unless they get paid off it. Before iTunes, people were getting their music free.. now they are paying $1.25.

Miss the show ? Pay. Want to watch old TV shows from the 80s? Pay.

Why do you think Netflix is having to make original content? Content owners know that they are better off charging per viewing than selling a bunch of shows in bulk. Pretty soon we'll be subscribing to TV shows. Probably will start at $20 per season. After 10 years they will charge a time shifting fee if you don't watch it at a certain time.

Comment Content owners (Score 1) 198

Uh,content owners want to overcharge you for that. I mean, they know you are desperate to see some show so why not make some money off that? It's like buying bottled water after Katrina. We'll sort of, but without the malice.

They know you want it, so why not make some extra money off that? Why not charge you for the convenience of watching it later?
The only reason VCR is allowed is because the Supreme Court forced it on the TV networks.

Comment Re: self-driving or assisted driving ? (Score 1) 186

Because now it's a matter of refining the software. Anyway, if it turns out they need a fancier radar or something I am sure they can swap one in. It's mostly well known what hardware and computing power is needed for self driving. We know how much CPU power is needed to render the 3D graphics of Avatar 2 but that doesn't mean the movie is completed. And like I said if someone invents a way to make it better then let the next generation cars have it.

Comment Re: self-driving or assisted driving ? (Score 1) 186

It doesn't need lane markings if it can has a good 3D representation of what's around it. If a human can do it, a car can do it better because it will have far more deep imaging, radars, GPS based spatial awareness, cameras etc to lean on. If the conditions are dangerous for a human. A human shouldn't be driving in it either.

Comment Re: "Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score 1) 619

I don't believe anyone who is xenophobic isn't racist. Only racists can be xenophobic. If you aren't racist why would you hate fear and hate foreigners? And btw, to make things worse, Trump believes in killing innocent relatives of terrorists as a form of deterrence and revenge. He also believes in extreme torture (while claiming to be a strong Christian), how the hell can anyone support such a candidate?

Comment Re: What does this even mean ? (Score 1) 365

Only if there is bad luck and incidents like that happen before autonomous vehicles are widespread. And even so, it may slow it down but I believe autonomously vehicles are the inevitable. I mean, things just as horrible have happened for other stuff. It lights up the news for a few days maybe even weeks. It even becomes a hashtag but then eventually takes a payoff and retires to be forgotten in the Bahamas.

If many people own driverless cars they won't fall for it. They won't give up the convenience. It's already physically annoying to drive without autopilot once you get used to it (i.e., after a few weeks). I mean we know smoking cigarettes cause cancer. Even smokers know it causes cancer. Have people given it up? Not a lot. We know drunk people cause thousands of deaths via bar fights/stabbing/domestic violence and also drunk driving. Have we brought back prohibition? Cigarettes and alcohol when abused are bad for you. I mean they provide a societal economic benefit by offering people the chance to relax from a days work .. but they also cause a lot of harm. Driverless cars too would offer economic benefit (read, video conference, or watch tv while driving) and much more rarely cause harm than alcohol or cigarettes. So why would people give it up? I don't think people are as stupid as assumed. Though I might change my mind if Trump gets elected.

Comment Re: What does this even mean ? (Score 1) 365

First off if you were even half correct, Tesla wouldn't have a much higher safety record than any other car. Second, with objects moving at speed a car computer with radar and other sensors would be a lot better at anticipating for example whether someone intends to go through a stop sign. Humans don't currently have radar sense as far as I know and probably won't even get a visual on the car until it's too late. A self driving car can judge that an incoming car driver has not pressed the brake and in the worst case adjust its own speed such that the car's occupants (passenger compartment) don't receive the brunt of the collision. Even if the driver wakes up and slams the brake one second before he collision, the self driving car will know what to do because it will detect the speed change and work other he physics in realtime -- assuming it couldn't anticipate it way early. You usually have to press the brake seconds before you reach a stop sign so it will be obvious to any driverless car that you will run it. No human can have that level of fine grained split second speed adjustment and brake application. Driverless cars would even be able to tell when there is a sleepy or drunk driver on the road (abnormal swerving etc) and avoid them. Human judgement might be better at determining when say a stalker may be following you home (or actually a car may be better at that since it can track statistical probabilities of someone making the same turns as you etc). So basically, thinking about it there is nothing in operating the vehicle that a computer wouldn't be better at handling than a human.

Self driving cars will only get better at a anticipating each other. Eventually we may not even have stop signs and traffic lights since cars will adjust their speeds so they can mesh through the intersections at near top speed.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ask not what A Group of Employees can do for you. But ask what can All Employees do for A Group of Employees." -- Mike Dennison