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


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! ×

Comment Re:Uhm... (Score 1) 340

With a income of at least 100M that we know of, and possible billions elsewhere, I believe we can clearly say he knows what he is doing.

I possibly have billions elsewhere. I don't, but I possibly could. That means fuck-all. However, we know for sure that Trump is in a shitload of debt — No really, an entire shitload.

So no, no it is not clear that Trump knows what he is doing, and it cannot seem that way unless you willfully ignore the concept of debt.

Comment Re:Parity? Really? (Score 1) 340

If Trump and the GOP couldn't unravel the 3500 page health care law, how are they going to pull off reforming the tax code, which ran like twenty-three volumes (without addendums) back in the 1990s?

Presumably you just throw it away and start over with something simpler. Hopefully you have some numbers which tell you how much tax revenue will be collected if you do that; at least the math should be simpler if you simplify the crap out of the tax code.

That's not counting the judicial precedents which are now law. Hell, there's like several hundred pages of law that just governs the taxation issues related to owning racehorses

There's no reasonable way to fix that stuff except case by case, because you can't throw out all the laws as easily as you can throw out the tax code.

Comment Re:Foul, oversimplification (Score 1) 340

Sigh. Where do the prisoners go? Not USA, because of Congress. To another Gitmo? Hardly an answer. Go free? That gets way complicated.

Nobody forced him to make the claim that he was going to close Gitmo. If he wasn't prepared to set any prisoners free that couldn't be charged with a real crime and incarcerated elsewhere, then he shouldn't have said that he was going to close the place. Just as soon as you can show that someone put a gun to his head and forced him to claim he was going to do it, you can use that argument.

Comment Re:False equivalency (Score 1) 340

I'm with you on Trump and Healthcare, but not Obama and Gitmo. The president has pardon powers. He could have wielded them to close Gitmo if he was serious. Everyone wants to talk about how Obama is a constitutional scholar, and how he was qualified to be president because he knew things about things. When he claimed he wanted to close Gitmo, he surely therefore already knew that the people we keep there are not only people we want to torture without the world watching, but also people who we don't know what to do with.

Did Obama make a good-faith attempt to close Gitmo? Let me tell you what I think that looks like. I think it looks like giving a one year deadline (or similar) to charge everyone in Gitmo with a real crime and then transfer them to a real facility with real oversight where we don't really just want to torture them, with the threat being that he will simply pardon those people at the end on the basis that we are a nation which allegedly operates by the rule of law, and then actually following through. It would be political suicide, no doubt, but he's the one who made the claim that he was going to close Gitmo.

Trump is an incompetent dickbag who is not even trying to do a good job. None of this is a defense of Trump. But I don't think you can construct a reasonable defense of Obama, either. At least, not on this issue, and certainly not on that basis.

Comment Re:Not all wrecks can be avoided (Score 1) 167

When someone cuts you off, most humans won't say "oh well" and hit them, they will still try to avoid an accident.

When the AI becomes capable of making those decisions, then they will start trying to make them. It's not there. Right now the system is not capable of making the decision of whether it should make evasive action, or whether that would be morally inferior to simply permitting the accident to happen. As such, the systems basically take two approaches. One is to be as risk-averse as you will let the system be. You can dial in following distance and speed, those are your responsibility. The other is to adopt the attitude that it is better to mitigate the collision that you can understand than to risk getting into what might be a worse collision by taking evasive action.

As a driver, you are responsible for understanding that your evasive action might endanger others — it might in fact be an illegal move. The automated driving system isn't going to make one of those. It's going to log the precise moment (with a highly-accurate GPS-corrected timestamp) at which the other vehicle's driver (or software) broke the law by entering its lane and nailing the brakes, or whatever it is that the other vehicle did that caused the collision. It will be able to precisely quantify why the other vehicle's action was an illegal maneuver. And then it's going to do what it can to minimize the damage caused by the accident, without itself breaking the law.

Most drivers seem only dimly aware at best of what is happening around them. Many of them are aware of basically nothing but what's happening right in front of them, and the conversation going on in their vehicle. Plenty of them are on mind-altering substances, whether prescription or not. It is best when the average human doesn't attempt evasive action in traffic. Sometimes you know that there's no one around you, and then you can take evasive action somewhat freely. Sooner or later, the automated cars will be able to identify some situations where they have free motion.

On the other hand, a lot of these situations are going to be mitigated by V2V and data sharing. Every vehicle is going to be reporting everything of interest that it sees, all day every day, to a system that will share this information with every automaker's (or supplier's) routing system. If a dog runs out into the street in front of your car, it's going to let the system know that there's a dog running in front of cars in your area, and other cars are going to slow down as they approach the same location, reducing the risk of a collision. If a ball bounces out into the street in front of your car, it's going to let the system know, and it's going to [effectively] let the car behind you know that it should slow down in case a child runs out after it. If some vehicle is operating erratically and cutting people off, then other vehicles will see it coming, recognize it, and give it a wide berth. Even if it doesn't have a transponder onboard, it will happen via license plate recognition; if it doesn't have plates, then the system will not only identify it as the vehicle of a certain shape and color that doesn't have plates, but the information will also percolate downwards to law enforcement, who will have the opportunity to give them a pass and determine whether they've got a temporary operating permit... or they've just stolen a car. Some of this data will even be available to human drivers; they will be persuaded to install telemetry in their vehicle by offering them a product which puts V2V data on a HUD in exchange. Others will do it for a break on their insurance. Eventually it will become mandatory for use of public roadways.

Comment Re:Rethink (Score 1) 167

Think about it this way. If someone cuts me off in traffic and I run into them because I'm not watching, wouldn't the accident technically be my fault?

In short, no. If a dog runs into the road and you hit it because you were distracted then the dog's owner is at fault for the collision, but if the courts really hate you then you also might get busted for distracted driving. Your insurance company is still going to go after the dog's owner even if you were dicking with your cellphone. The same is true of a traffic incident. Maybe you will also get into trouble, if they have a good lawyer maybe it will be no fault or you will share fault, but it is actually their fault.

Comment Re:Rear-view mirror. (Score 1) 167

Rather than waiting to hook up with a train, each car is self-propelled and also has enough power to push or pull another car. They organize into trains when it's convenient (it's more efficient that way anyway) but they don't have to operate in that fashion. They also don't have to be so heavy if the motive force is spread out throughout the train, and can manage the strain between cars.

Comment Re:Parity? Really? (Score 1) 340

Do you think the lawyers reading the ACA legislation and the children reading Harry Potter are equal?

I'm pretty sure lawyers' reading skills outpace those of Harry Potter-age children.

Plus, the lawmakers are being very well-compensated to read legislation. It's like their one fucking job, you know?

If Trump and the GOP couldn't unravel the 3500 page health care law, how are they going to pull off reforming the tax code, which ran like twenty-three volumes (without addendums) back in the 1990s? That's not counting the judicial precedents which are now law. Hell, there's like several hundred pages of law that just governs the taxation issues related to owning racehorses.

Comment Re:Take whoever came up with this (Score 1) 92

I've seen IT directors who drive Teslas but who still pocket RAM sticks from the lab.

The problem is, there is zero probability that this new corporate surveillance will be aimed at IT directors.

Because if there's one thing we've learned, it's that if you are rich and you steal, it's considered, "smart". If you're making $35k/yr and you make an unauthorized copy of your tax return on a company xerox machine, you're going to get frog-marched out of the place.

Late-stage capitalism is a cancer.

Slashdot Top Deals

The disks are getting full; purge a file today.