Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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 Judge Clement didn't say you can't film police (Score 2) 31

Judge Clement's dissenting opinion did not say that citizens aren't allowed to film the police.

This hearing was about whether he should just sue the city, or of he could also sue the individual officers personally, given the particular details of the events, and the particular circumstances at the time. The law on this question depends on those details.

Clement believes that the city is liable in this particular instance, not the individual officers personally.

There's no general principle at being decided in this case. Though it was mentioned that citizens generally have a right to film police in the conduct of their duties, that was settled law - as the the opinion mentioned, there is no circuit court split or anything on that question.

Comment Of course there are laws. BeauHD is full of shit (Score 1) 62

> As a European I am astounded that companies don't already have a requirement to keep personal data safe. It is something that I just expect to happen.

Of course there are laws. Several of them. This submission is just BeauHD spouting more utter bullshit.

Yesterday, the FCC decided that some of the hundreds of thousands of Title II regulations originally written to regulate the phone companies would apply differently to small ISPs. BeauHD claimed the order said "ISPs are now allowed to lie about their pricing!" Uh, no. The closest regulation to what he claimed is actually that small ISPs won't have to go through the same six-to-twelve month process of getting preapproval from FCC before they offer a new pricing plan. Wireline phone companies have to get any pricing options pre-approved ahead of time under Title II.

When BeauHD submits a summary saying "giant shark eats man alive", that means what actually happened is that a trout bit a guy's finger.
 

Comment In 1920s, before Elon Musk's dad was born. Psychic (Score 1) 118

>Dealers were upset at being cut out of the loop by Telsa (to the point of getting state legislatures to draft laws blocking Telsa's stores)

The laws prohibiting manufacturers from owning dealerships were passed in the 1920s-1950s. (Before Elon Musk's father, Errol Musk, was born, and 60 years before 18 year-old Elon first came to North America). I guess those dealers must have psychic! Also very concerned about their great-grandchildren, since everyone involved in passing those laws are dead now.

If you learn a bit about what happened before manufacturing and dealerships were split up, and why those laws were passed, you'll probably have some interesting things to say about it.

 

Comment So make some regulations about that (Score 1) 114

> This action isn't about what businesses have to read. It's about what information they have to disclose to their customers.

Well no, THIS action has little to do with what has to be disclosed to consumers. If you want some regulations about that, if you see small ISPs engaging in funny business about pricing, make some appropriate regulations. This action is about title II - regulations written for the big phone companies, many of them written for THE phone company, Bell, before it was broken up. They cover many things, but the common theme is that they have to get FCC approval before doing almost anything.

Submission + - Professors claim passive cooling breakthrough via plastic film (economist.com)

charlesj68 writes: An article in the Economist discusses the development of a plastic film by two professors at the University of Colorado in Boulder that provides a passive cooling effect. The film contains embedded glass beads that absorb and emit infrared in a wavelength that is not blocked by the atmosphere. Combining this with half-silvering to keep the sun from being the source of infrared absorption on the part of the beads, and you have way of pumping heat at a claimed rate of 93 watts per square meter.
Actual paper in Science: http://science.sciencemag.org/...
Original research by others in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/j...

Comment Yes there may be more than one cause (Score 1) 237

That's certainly true that there may be more than one cause, and there is a well-developed body of law in this area. Including "but-for" and "last clear chance". I don't believe discussing that is necessary for the present question.

> According to your legal theory of negligence, consumers in fact could NEVER sue product manufacturers, since the "results of your action are the results"...

In fact I said the purchaser WOULD sue the manufacturer. The manufacturer took some actions, which had some results. The manufacturer is responsible for the results of their actions. It may be that their action was telling their customer (UPS in this example) "this truck can safely drive itself under all conditions". It may also be that their action was telling UPS "this truck has driver assistance features, which reduce the likelihood of crashes when the driver fails to see something up ahead." I, the third-party driver on the road, wasn't part of that conversation between Tesla and UPS, so I don't even know what Tesla said. I do know that UPS sent the truck out on an ice-covered road, with a certain number of deliveries to make on the shift (implying it has to go a certain speed). If UPS's truck hits me, again I expect UPS to pay for the damages. UPS thinks Tesla misled them about the truck's capabilities, they can turn around and collect from Tesla.

Submission + - World's Largest Spam Botnet Adds DDoS Feature (bleepingcomputer.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Necurs, the world's largest spam botnet with nearly five million infected bots, of which one million active each day, has added a new module that can be used for launching DDoS attacks. The sheer size of the Necurs botnet, even in its worst days, dwarfs all of today's IoT botnets, who barely managed to reach 400,000 (albeit the owner of that botnet has now been arrested).

If this new feature would ever to be used, a Necurs DDoS atack would easily break every DDoS record there is. Fortunately, no such attack has been seen until now. Until now, the Necurs botnet has been seen spreading the Dridex banking trojan and the Locky ransomware. According to industry experts, there's a low chance to see the Necurs botnet engage in DDoS attacks because the criminal group behind the botnet is already making too much money to risk exposing their full infrastructure in DDoS attacks.

Comment You expect your car to safely drive itself on ice? (Score 2) 237

> No one buys a toy airplane with the expectation that someone's life depends upon it

Did you buy a car with the expectation that it'll autonomously drive itself on ice-covered, twisty mountain passes safely, while you watch a movie and drink whiskey? I didn't. Some cars now feature automatic emergency braking. *When* the car senses an impending collision, it'll automatically apply the brakes. I don't expect that it will predict every possible accident and prevent me from getting in a wreck. Do you? I don't think collision detection removes my responsibility to avoid creating an impending collision in the first place. I expect that, like safety belts, it will often reduce the injuries for certain common types of collisions.

Comment Drone has no passenger at all. Results, not error (Score 2) 237

> What error in judgement did they make that makes them liable?

That's not the legal, or fair, standard. The results of my actions are the results, whether I made an error in judgement or just got unlucky. Of my action causes damage, I'm responsible for the results of my actions. Heck, even og my dog bites you, I'm responsible for the medical bill etc because it's my dog - you don't have to prove that I knowingly kept a dangerous dog or made some other error. (Unless perhaps you're trespassing, in which case maybe you caused the bite.)

> the passengers won't be making any operational decisions; there may not even BE passengers in lots of cases.
> They aren't operating them except to have called it up and set a destination.
> Uber/Lyft/MyCityCabCompany/BigCityTrucking/Amazon?

If Amazon puts a log in the road, they are responsible for the results. If Amazon parks a regular truck in the middle of the road, they are responsible for the results. If they drive trucks with the new automatic emergency braking and their drivers completely rely on that to avoid accidents, they are responsible. Whatever Amazon puts on the road, they are responsible for the results of their actions in putting it there.

> If they crash, it is because the vehicle wasn't sufficiently able to cope with doing the thing it was made to do. Operating in traffic in the real world safely is their function. That includes windy days, or in traffic jams, or during a police road closure or construction detour.

Maybe such a thing will be sold some day. Right now, cruise control amd automatic braking aren't anywhere near what you've described. When that happens, of it ever does, Tesla will tell *UPS* "buy our self-driving trucks, you can pay fewer drivers." Tesla will show *UPS* under what conditions the trucks can be safely deployed (snow and ice?). UPS will make a decisiom for the purpose of saving themselves money, based on their discussions with Tesla. Note I'm not part of those discussions. I don't know of Tesla told UPS "these trucks can handle dry pavement autonomously. When there is ice on the road or other dangerous conditions you'll need drivers." As far as I know, Tesla may have told UPS "these trucks have driver assist to reduce driver fatigue."

If UPS's truck rear-ends me on an ice-covered road, I'm going to sue UPS. I don't know what Tesla told UPS about what conditions are safe and which are unsafe for the trucks. If UPS also sues Tesla for selling them bunk trucks, that's none of my business. That's all about the discussions and contract between UPS and Tesla.

Submission + - AZ Bill Would Make Students in Grades 4-12 Participate Once In An Hour of Code

theodp writes: Christopher Silavong of Cronkite News reports: "A bill, introduced by [Arizona State] Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, would mandate that public and charter schools provide one hour of coding instruction once between grades 4 to 12. Kavanagh said it’s critical for students to learn the language – even if it’s only one session – so they can better compete for jobs in today’s world. However, some legislators don’t believe a state mandate is the right approach. Senate Bill 1136 has passed the Senate, and it’s headed to the House of Representatives. Kavanagh said he was skeptical about coding and its role in the future. But he changed his mind after learning that major technology companies were having trouble finding domestic coders and talking with his son, who works at a tech company." According to the Bill, the instruction can "be offered by either a nationally recognized nonprofit organization [an accompanying Fact Sheet mentions tech-backed Code.org] that is devoted to expanding access to computer science or by an entity with expertise in providing instruction to pupils on interactive computer instruction that is aligned to the academic standards."

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (6) Them bats is smart; they use radar.

Working...