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

 



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 Re:Thanks. Mr. Obvious (Score 1) 241

It doesn't matter how low the accident rate for SDC's go if they do not go to absolute zero.

If you, the customer, want to allow the manufacturer to dodge the liability in their product, then fine - go ahead and do it. However, if that product then harms me on a public road, the manufacturer doesn't get to claim "Well, our customer agreed to the EULA".

The "low accident rate makes it moot" only makes it moot for those who accept it - i.e. the SDC customer. Unfortunately for the manufacturer, any defect in their product that harms a third party means that the manufacturer is still liable.

That's the current law. I do not foresee any changes to it to accomodate self-driving cars. In fact, I would vigourously oppose any law that prevents me from taking a manufacturer to task for an error made in the decision-making in its product.

Comment Re:Beyond stupid (Score 1) 241

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.

This does not look like a critique of the headline:

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.

That's word for word what you wrote - here's the link.

Comment Re:Beyond stupid (Score 2) 241

In what way is that making the self driving car liable?

It's making the manufacturer liable. Seriously, did you even RTFA?

Where the manufacturer is found to be liable, the insurer will be able to pursue a subrogated claim against the manufacturer under existing common law and product liability arrangements and recover their costs from the manufacturer.

Now do you understand?

The headline is beyond stupid.

Then to avoid misconceptions you should have maybe read the article. Even the summary makes the point that if the passenger is not liable then the manufacturer is.

I note that initially you didn't specifically call out the headline as being stupid, you just generally called the story 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.

That fiction is only in the headline. The article *and* the summary clarifies things. You make judgements about all articles based on clickbait headlines?

Comment Re:Beyond stupid (Score 1) 241

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?

The people in charge of the SDC is the manufacturer, not the passenger. The manufacturer determines how the car drives. The passenger only determines the destination. Do you also think that you are liable if you're in a taxi that gets involved in an accident?

Comment Re:Thanks. Mr. Obvious (Score 1) 241

What do you mean "initially".

What I mean is that eventually, when the bugs have been worked out and only automated cars are allowed to use most of the lanes on the interstate and the accident rate stabilizes (hopefully near zero) then the burden will be shifted from the automakers to the customers, who will pay for it along with the rest of their mandatory liability insurance. The insurers aren't going to deal with insuring vehicles individually until the risk is reasonably estimable.

Why should the customer *ever* be liable for a malfunctioning car? If it is supposed to self-drive and it doesn't, then that's not my fault, it's the fault of the manufacturer.

Comment Re:Thanks. Mr. Obvious (Score 1) 241

Car makers are selling Autopilot knowing full well that the people behind the wheel will be texting/surfing on their phones or in car entertainment systems.

Car makers are selling cars without Autopilot knowing full well that the people behind the wheel will be texting/surfing on their phones or in car entertainment systems.

And the manufacturer then doesn't have any liability. It sounds like you are in agreement with parent.

Comment Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score 1) 316

I agree, documentation of protocols needs to be improved; however, it's hard to document everything you did for a paper when the journal doesn't give you very many words at all to actually explain what you did, and many don't support video sections for online papers.

Video is almost always less information-dense than text. Why would you want to spend ten minutes watching something that can be read in 60 seconds?

Comment Re:Oh please (Score 1) 204

Dereferencing the virtual address 0x72 is guaranteed to crash an application when the OS is designed never to map the first (usually 4K) addresses. Accessing that memory causes a page fault, the OS searches the page table for the corresponding page mapping, fails to find a valid mapping, so you get a segmentation fault.

This has nothing to do with C though. C says the behavior is "undefined" if you set a pointer to a location that is not used to store a C object.

We've already agreed that it's undefined behaviour. What we're arguing are the circumstances that this particular invocation of UB would result in a crash. Just because something is UB doesn't mean that it consistently crashes at the point of UB.

Comment Re:Oh please (Score 1) 204

Oh, it can. It just won't do it reliably. Setting a string pointer to 0x72 will certainly do.

It can. It might not though. It depends, actually, on whether it is ever deferenced or not. The original *s = 'H' can crash without ever needing any more derefencing. Your correction can (not 'will', but 'can') crash only if it is dereferenced.

Setting it is not enough, you have to dereference it as well. Although now that I think about it, depending on the platform, simply dereferencing it may still not be enough.

For example, I just tried it now, verbatim, in the OS kernel I hobby-developed and it worked just fine reading from it. Of course, it returned some random address stored in the interrupt vector table, but it did not crash!

I can also write to it too - I've not yet filled in the IVT so no interrupt number is using those numbers ... yet! The OS is probably going to use int-0x80 and storing 12 bytes at 0x72 will not reliably overwrite address 0x80. At the current alignment it certainly will not. A single character more will take the total to 13 + alignment padding = 16 bytes total, which is 0x72. A bad jump here will probably reboot, which we can safely judge to be a crash.

Comment Re:Let's be clear on what we mean by election hack (Score 2) 251

I guess the Russians flooding the internet with fake news in order to delegitimize every single news organization is not hacking? I'm not convinced there was voting machine hacking, but the Russians definitely engaged in social hacking in a concerted effort to boost Trump.

Lemme guess, you hate Woodward and Bernstein too right? They influenced presidential politics the same way you think those 'commie bastards' influenced the election.

Comment Re:You pay people to do fuck-all... (Score 1) 722

I wouldn't be so sure about creativity and insight either. Check out this sketch, colored by an AI neural network based on just a few squiggled hints. You can hardly argue that coloring isn't creative, and that's an AI that exists right now -- the tech is only improving as time goes on.

That doesn't look too impressive - a better bucket-fill basically. The shading is random, after all, not based on depth and lighting.

Comment Re:Arduino uses C++, Pi uses Linux (Score 1) 374

> Just off the top of my head, a single template function instantiated with the same type arguments in two different compilation units produces two (identical) copies of the same code in the final executable.

Get a better head.

Failing that, get a better linker.

The linker can't help if the compiler in-lines the function, which it may choose to do regardless of programmer intention.

Comment Re:Arduino uses C++, Pi uses Linux (Score 1) 374

Its sometimes difficult to share template code, since a major point of templates is to reduce source code. Code that works for doubles cannot be the same code as code that works for ints. So how its not bloat. In C you would get exactly the same amount of bloat plus twice the source.

Just off the top of my head, a single template function instantiated with the same type arguments in two different compilation units produces two (identical) copies of the same code in the final executable.

Slashdot Top Deals

You do not have mail.

Working...