Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Trademark infringement mostly (Score 1) 214

If they're basing this on owning the copyright to the Olympics, this isn't going to work - owning a copyright on the name of a thing doesn't mean that you can prevent anyone from talking about your thing, just that nobody else can sell it.

It's not only a copyright but a trademark too. They Olympics and symbols relating to it are all trademarks so the primary argument would be trademark infringement though in many cases their argument would be a weak one. Often they don't have a solid legal leg to stand on but they have demonstrated in the past that they will no hesitate to sick their flesh eating lawyers on anyone who crosses them.

Basically they are trying to protect the (substantial) money they get from their "official sponsors".

Comment Not an idle threat (Score 3, Informative) 214

You can bluster and threaten as much as you want, but reporting on the facts is perfectly legal.

That's true but the IOC and USOC don't care. They will sue you even if you did nothing illegal and I don't think this is an idle threat. They (mistakenly) think they are protecting their corporate sponsors by doing this. They sued Wizards of the Coast for using a symbol that could not possibly have been mistaken for the Olympic rings.

Comment Corrupt bastards (Score 1) 214

Commercial entities may not post about the Trials or Games on their corporate social media accounts

Good luck with that.

Apparently the letter says that any company whose primary mission isn't media is forbidden from using any pictures taken at the Olympics, sharing, and even reposting anything from the official Olympics account.

Reminds me of the time when the IOC decided the card game Legend of the Five Rings somehow infringed on their trademarks.

This from the same crowd that refuses to ban Russia in the face of clear evidence of a state sponsored doping program.

Comment Accountability (Score 1) 168

The bean counters would still do it without the CEO's direction, since it directly affects the company's ability to pay the employees (including said bean counters) salaries.

Company wide tax mitigation does not happen without C-suite executives being involved. Period. Virtually everything accountants do affects the financial statements and those are reviewed closely by the CEO and his direct reports if they care to keep their jobs. As such it does not happen without oversight with the head of the company leading that oversight.

And they would be under less pressure to do illegal tax dodges, since they would bear direct responsibility for those decisions instead of "just following orders.

Accountants DO bear direct responsibility for their actions and can (and occasionally do) go to jail for "illegal tax dodges". They are the first ones thrown under the bus if something shady is going on. Most tax dodges are 100% legal and there is a cottage industry in finding clever ways to legally reduce tax. The only ones who do it illegally are the ones who are too dumb to know better.

Hang the CEOs, watch the company do better as the people who actually know their jobs do them without outside interference.

If you want to see what a company looks like when you let the accounting and finance people do their jobs "without outside interference" I direct your attention to Enron. What you are proposing is a one way ticket to Fraudtown. A CEO who isn't keeping a close eye on the where the money goes in the company is not doing his/her job and should be fired.

Comment Wishful thinking (Score 1) 569

But airplanes have been flying with Autopilot for decades, and the legal situation is quite clear - the pilot is responsible for flying the plane, and the Autopilot is just an assist that automates some of the boring stuff.

And that is exactly how it should be in automobiles as well. The driver is the responsible party. When we get to fully automated vehicles things might get a little more complicated but for now it's pretty simple who is liable. The only real question is if Tesla has some sort of contributory negligence style liability as well.

Exactly the same as Tesla's Autopilot - probably why they named it Autopilot was to remind people of that.

Problem there is that to fly a plane you need to demonstrate a high level of competency and substantial amounts of training with tests to fly even the simplest of aircraft which lack autopilot. They don't let you use autopilot until they are damn sure you know what you are doing. The only tests we give to drive are some ridiculously easy tests that most teenagers can pass and we never evaluate their driving competency ever again even though many are seriously lacking in driving competence. Trusting that drivers will understand the connection to the use of the term in aviation is wishful thinking.

Comment Re:Water itself is toxic (Score 0) 171

De-ionized water EXISTS ONLY IN A LAB. Water self ionizes. If you do not take steps to keep water de-ionized, you will not have de-ionized water. You have NEVER, EVER had de-ionized water coming from your tap or in a water bottle. And you're a fool if you're drinking water at the lab. Pure water, with extraneous Na+, K+, Ca2+ etc ions removed, is PERFECTLY SAFE to drink, provided you don't drink enough that you dilute the ions in your body to a dangerous level.

Please try to at least learn something about what you try to argue about.

Comment Why autopilot (Score 1) 569

Why do people want to use autopilot in the first place?

Numerous reasons.
1) Physical comfort to start. I use cruise control in my car to relieve my leg from having to be fixed in a position for an extended period of time. It can get quite uncomfortable. Discomfort can lead to distraction and distraction can lead to accidents. (insert yoda joke here)
2) Autopilot also can be useful as a safety measure precisely because people's attention routinely waivers. Computers don't get distracted as easily as we do. I challenge you to find a driver who has never accidentally veered out of their lane while distracted or had to perform an emergency stop because of some condition they failed to notice ahead. Autopilot can help ensure these situation occur less often.
3) We lack the technology to fully automate driving but we have technology to prevent some types of accidents. We put ABS and traction control and air bags, and seat belts and other technology on cars to improve safety. Technology that keeps you marginally safer is a good thing. If autopilot can prevent more accidents than would happen without it then it is a good thing to have. We're looking for a net benefit.

Comment Emotion and judges (Score 1) 569

Judges don't deal in emotions like a jury does.

HA! If you really believe that you need to educate yourself about judges. They're just as human and subject to emotion as anyone else. The entire reason we have juries in the first place is precisely because judges are prone to emotion and irrationality and error and bias.

Comment Regulations are written in blood (Score 1) 569

Yes, this is an extremely common use case. Tesla will likely fix it. But it does suggest that they have not put the appropriate thought into the thousands of less common use cases that will creep up when this product gets into the hands of more people.

I've said it before but I'll say it again. This is a case of "Regulations are written in blood" in the sense that there will be a human cost involved in figuring out what works and what doesn't and fixing it so it doesn't happen again. Automated driving technologies are going to cost some number of lives and injuries to develop. I don't know how many, I just know the number will be greater than zero. There will be innumerable corner cases to work out before the technology meets its full potential and we will only learn about some of these by someone getting injured.

People bitch about regulations but they tend to forget the human cost that led to the regulation in the first place. New technologies rarely come without a human cost involved. Even something as seemingly innocuous as text messaging has resulted in fatalities because we didn't fully anticipate the degree of distraction it caused to drivers.

Comment Regulations (Score 3, Informative) 171

Tap water regulations are usually very strict.

Unless you live in Flint Michigan...

But once you bottle the water it becomes food, and food can contain pretty much anything.

Not even remotely true but thanks for trying. While there is (unfortunately) a lot of wiggle room, food production, marketing, and sales is actually pretty heavily regulated by the FDA and USDA among others.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants