Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment Re:One less idiot on the road (Score 3, Insightful) 190

However, can we all agree that it is also incredible stupidity on Tesla's part to call this "Autopilot"?

As a Tesla owner, I do not agree. Tesla makes it abundantly clear what the capabilities and limitations are. Nobody that is actually using it has been misled.

Comment Re:Well, to be realistic (Score 1) 78

Well, Canada and the USA aren't part of that, that's for sure. Every restaurant, Walmart, mini mart, gas station, hell, even furniture stores will take the opposite countries currency happily. Typically at a loss for the buyer. I've ended up doing this a few times when I've been short on cash and not a single time have they asked for any information at all, ever. In fact, all the currency conversions I've done at professional institutions, such as large currency conversion chains... never once been asked for info.

Perhaps in border towns, but in most parts of the USA, stores will only accept American currency and will look at you suspiciously if you try to use foreign currency - even Canadian.

I used my Canadian credit card there successfully more than once, effectively making the retailer accept Canadian dollars.

That's not how foreign credit card transactions typically work - the merchant gets paid in his local currency, and your bank exchanges that currency for your local currency (usually charging you a foreign transaction fee or a more expensive exchange rate).

I've seen some merchants in heavy tourist areas let the customer decide which of a few currencies the transaction is charged in when you make the transaction, but that's not the norm.

Comment Re: drone ship landings require a lot less fuel? (Score 1) 103

I have the front panel of the VAX 11/780 used to render that scene hanging on my wall, but I got to Pixar after that project. This year and last I've contributed some designs that will fly on a FEMA satellite, and a long time ago did a little work to support the Biosciences mission on the shuttle.

Comment Re:Easy target for enemies... (Score 0) 45

Such a tunnel seems to be an even easier target for a Russian submarine or a well-equipped terrorist, than a regular bridge or a tunnel in solid soil.

You don't need a submarine, or even explosives. Just order several truckloads of bricks to be delivered simultaneously. The extra weight will cause the tunnel to sink and implode. Just make sure you set up a camera, so you can record the event and post in on Youtube to generate publicity for your group.

Comment Re:Who cares..?? (Score 1) 555

Oh wow, is that what was missing? Not enough grassroots support for Bernie? That was the problem?

The ONLY support he had was grassroots. What he was lacking was the party support that they were contractually obligated to provide, the media coverage that those running the DNC didn't want him to have, and debates that would have exposed him to a larger audience and given him more a boost over Clinton.

In 2008 the Democrats had 26 debates. Clinton participated in all of them, Obama only missed one. Clinton, the "party favorite", lead Obama by 10 points at the start, 35% to 25%, and she would lead him by over 20 points eventually. But she lost her lead in February, and didn't get it back again. The party wasn't going to make the same mistake twice. In 2016 the DNC said that there were going to be 6 debates, because they don't want to threaten the impending coronation of Clinton, do they? Eventually a total of 9 were held, with Clinton and Sanders appearing in all of them. In the first debate support for Sanders was at 25% (sound familiar?), but Sanders didn't get above 40% before the debate schedule ended (in April; the last primaries happened in June).

But I'm sure that had nothing to do with it. I'm sure the problem was not that the DNC was actively working against Sanders and for Clinton, but just that Sanders didn't have enough grassroots support. Because if there's one thing this election showed, it's that Sanders had hardly any grassroots support.

But listen, I'm not trying to change the policies of any party. They can all nominate whoever they want, and I'm going to vote for the person that I think best represents me. If they want my vote, then they'll nominate someone who represents me. Clinton doesn't, and Trump doesn't, so neither of them have earned my vote (the Democrats could have made up a lot of ground there with a VP pick like Warren, but I guess it's better to pick some vanilla guy that no one outside of Virginia has heard of). It's really that simple. If polls of likability are any indication, then it's time to unseat both major parties from their positions and get another 1 or 2 parties into the mix. The 2 major parties don't even represent a majority of Americans, we need more choices. There are too many points of view to expect either major party to satisfy most people.

Comment Re:Logic (Score 1) 555

Look, I realize that you hate Hillary with the intensity of a thousand suns, but it turns out that many people like her.

Not as many as you think (in fact, not even a simple majority). A majority of people either "dislike" or "strongly" dislike both Trump and Clinton, they are the #1 and #2 most-disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling. Additionally, most of the people who responded saying that they were going to vote for each of them said that their reason for voting was as a vote against the other candidate. So not even a majority of their own voters are voting because they like them, they are voting because of how much they hate/fear the other candidate.

This is not what representative democracy should look like. Any partisan idiot claiming that anyone else MUST!!! vote a certain way in order to stop the other person, and thereby continuing the status quo, is part of the problem. We need 3 or 4 viable parties and candidates in any major election. The way to get there is not to continue down the same broken path playing the same smoke-and-mirrors game. The media isn't going to pay attention to anything that they aren't paid to pay attention to, but if smaller parties get electoral votes in this election cycle then hopefully things will start to change for the next one.

Comment Re:Who cares..?? (Score 1) 555

I agree that the DNC is corrupt and badly in need of change. This is not the way to do it.

Oh, ok. How do you suggest we start the revolution, then? Why not just tear down the whole thing and rebuild? Wouldn't that ultimately be cheaper and less painful than trying to kill each termite and replace each board individually?

Comment Re:Who cares..?? (Score 1) 555

If you have to step in a dog turd to dodge a bullet, you do it. It's the smart and sensible choice.

Have you seen the movie "Saw"? Exactly the same premise you came up with. Someone points a gun at you, puts a big pile of dog shit there, and then delights in how they make you jump in the dog shit in order to avoid being shot by the gun that they are shooting at you. It's no less sadistic than when the Democrats decide to nominate the second-most-disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling and then they tell everyone that we all need to vote for her in order to defeat the only person more disliked than she is. How about if I just decide I don't want to play their game? They had a chance to nominate someone that would have caused me to vote (enthusiastically) for the Democratic party, but they decided instead to nominate someone corrupt and now *I* have to make the sacrifice? I've seen this game before, I know how it ends. The only winning move is not to play. Neither major party gets my vote, and they only have themselves to blame. A lot of those delegates aren't all that super, they made their bed and now they get to lie in it.

Slashdot Top Deals

You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.

Working...