Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
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 Police don't do "reasonable doubt" (Score 1) 125

It's not a cop's call to decide guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Besides, here's what I was actually replying to:

Would you trust a police officer whose cases only made it to a jury a small number of times, but 80 percent of those times the jury found he had made a wrongful arrest

If only a very small number of arrested suspects plead not guilty and have their case go the a jury trial then the cop is doing quite well are they not?
Also plenty of people are arrested on suspicion and released without ever going to trial after questioning or evidence shows that they are not guilty - nothing wrong with that, it's a process not instant magic.

To sum up the analogy is really pretty stupid when you think about it. The complaint about the reality it's being compared to probably even more so. Emotive bullshit being applied to attempt to smear a very conservative error checking system that is working precisely as designed.

Comment Re:Beyond stupid (Score 1) 239

This does not look like a critique of the headline

Read it again and relate it to "Self-Driving Cars Should Be Liable For Accidents, Not the Passengers". Note words like "finding a lookup table culpable" in the portion you quoted. Pretty obvious now isn't it?
Now haven't you got better things to do than be critical of my trivial whining about misleading editiorial bullshit and how it implies an incredibly stupid cargo cult attitude to A.I?

Comment Re:Beyond stupid (Score 1) 239

Seriously, did you even RTFA

Did you even read my post? It was not about the article.
The headline is beyond stupid.
If you wish to reply to something other than what I wrote then feel free, but don't be critical of me for it.

You make judgements about all articles based on clickbait headlines?

No, I wrote a judgement about the headline based upon the headline and very clearly wrote that I was doing so.

Comment Re:Beyond stupid (Score 1) 239

In what way is that making the self driving car liable?
The headline is beyond stupid.
The machine itself should IMHO not liable whether the manufacturer, programmer, passenger or mapmaker is or not. If someone fucks up the lookup table that people call an A.I. then that person or their employer should be liable instead of some stupid fiction about a car being able to make choices and found to be responsible.

When we have a clue what intelligence actually is and can replicate it in a machine it's time for that to change, but we are nowhere near that.

Comment Beyond stupid (Score 1) 239

Beyond stupid - the people in charge of children and livestock are found culpable so why let people in charge of something with less brains than either off?

When we've got an A.I. like the fictional ones of HAL or Colossus it's time to revise the rules, but finding a lookup table culpable? Beyond stupid.

Comment Re:the laws may take 3-5 years to get rid of drive (Score 1) 121

Yes but it's not just the protectionist laws that Uber are breaking. That's just a part of the swathes of laws they are breaking to cut corners. In Australia for example they have not paid tax since setting up and a raid by the tax office resulted in no employee information since that is apparently all in Holland.
It's as if the Scientologists decided to run taxis.

Comment Re:yes, this is of utmost importance (Score 3, Interesting) 173

because throwing a tablespoon of catsup (or ketchup) away in an almost empty bottle is such a crime and a waste

Some people (like me) whose parents grew up during wartime or similar were brought up to think exactly that. A bit of water in the bottle, shake it up and throw it in when making pasta sauce or similar calms that irrational food wasting guilt by getting the last bit out of a normal bottle.

I think the article is an example of a journalist saying "how can we use this in the home" when asking about a new scientific advance. Applied uses may end up really being something in minerals processing but it's harder for most to relate to that than kitchen stuff.

Comment Re:How does it work? (Score 1) 173

Right out of the bat I was concerned about whether or not this is based on nanotechnology, because we already have super-slick surfaces there. Not sure if I want to eat nanotech.

Since even the whitener in toothpaste got redefined as nanotech you already are despite it being nothing like the way Drexler et al used the term.
Androids are phones, hoverboards are skateboards with batteries and nanotech is powder in sunscreen, toothpaste etc - the future is now but it's not matching the hype.

Comment Re:Back? It never left. (Score 1) 198

So they came up with a definition that excludes all extrasolar planets (already confirmed to exist) and wandering planets (almost certain to exist)?

Who are you and I to correct astronomers? After all those office workers who call the beige box a "hard drive" think we are getting it wrong when we try to correct them, have you considered that this may be a similar situation?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Thank heaven for startups; without them we'd never have any advances." -- Seymour Cray