Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: So backwards... (Score 1) 227

While a valid question, what is missing here is the big picture. How many mistakes does a human make on average, vs. how many mistakes an autonomous car makes. Think seatbelts, while everyone agrees they save lives, people don't refute that in some situations (e.g. car is submerged) they kill people. And yet, most people agree that seatbelts are good and it's better to use them.

Comment Re:Reserved Model 3? (Score 1) 179

Available now? To whom? People like Woz, sure, they'll be delivering his shortly because it buys good PR. Regular people, not so much. So far Bolt is shipping only in CA and OR, in limited quantities and only if you reserved a while back. Of course, Model 3 is not available either, so as of right now, except for very few people, neither is available. However, I bet there are more Model 3 reservation holders that decided and actually took possession of a used Model S or even a new one, than there are people who took delivery of a Bolt.

Also, as far as range of Bolt vs. Tesla, read Woz'es comments on the subject, and he really is trying to love the Bolt. Unfortunately Bolt is missing a charging infrastructure (and charging speed) which is the main reason why Woz is keeping his Model S (or two). For most people trying to decide on Bolt vs. Model 3, keeping two cars, one Tesla for trips and one Bolt for around town is not really an option - they need one car that can do both. Hopefully GM and others will build out their own charging infrastructure soon to compete with Tesla - competition is great for consumers.

Comment Do as we say, not as we do? (Score 0) 90

Let me if I understand it correctly, Google Pixel uses their own proprietary charging but Android folks strongly recommend against it? If they can't get their own company to stop adopting non-recommended products, what chance do they have of others paying any attention to such recommendations?

Comment Re: Primary purpose is limit "local charging" (Score 3, Insightful) 174

Your comparison to gas stations is missing the point that only long distance travellers are charging. Everyone else charges at home. Think how many less gas stations you'd need if everyone had an automatic gas fill at home and only went to the gas station if they were driving more than 200miles in a day, or traveling. Even when visiting family far away, usually there is an outlet one can use - once EV's are more common, they will have chargers at family too.

Comment Primary purpose is limit "local charging" (Score 4, Informative) 174

Superchargers are meant for long distance travel, not for everyday charging. Most Tesla owners wake up every morning to a car full or electrons charged at home overnight, ready to roll ~220+ miles. Unfortunately some people, mostly in CA, decided they are willing to wait 30min to an hour every day just to get their $1-$5 worth of free electricity. That in turn caused congestion and people who were traveling long distances were annoyed having to wait, delaying their travels. I am speculating that the original thought was that people spending $70K+ on a car would not value their time at $4/hr or less (much less if they have to add another hour to drive to the nearest supercharger) but that turned out to be incorrect for small percentage of people. As Model 3 is priced at much lower price-point ($35K) and it's expected to sell a lot more units, so Tesla figured this problem will get worse. Charging a nominal fee to charging makes it not worth for someone who has a charger at home to drive to a supercharger to charge $2 worth of electricity. Only people who actually need them will use them.

PS> All the "old owners" have paid a $2,000 fee for the lifetime access to superchargers. It used to be an optional fee, but quickly was included with every car sold. A great majority of those owners will never get $2,000 worth of charging (e.g. coast-to-coast round trip will get you about $200 of free electricity). Not including this $2,000 in the price of the car will allow Tesla to keep the model 3 car price lower.

Comment FB doesn't discriminate, people do (Score 1) 177

It's a tool people. It allows bacon manufacturers to not piss off Muslims or Jewish people by spamming them with coupons for their products. It allows businesses to target their advertising dollars. If illegal discrimination is occurring, go after the parties discriminating, not everyone in-between. Is ProPublica going after Apple next if they manage to post a discriminating ad from an iPad?

Comment Re:I use the two sites for different purposes (Score 3, Insightful) 38

Bingo (though for me I don't use facebook at all, people who I want knowing how I spend my weekends already do). Whenever I interview anyone, I always google them first. I have to say, never, ever did someone's facebook page make the candidate look more suited for the job. At best, facebook content was neutral. I'm sure hiring for social media, comedians or other public entertainment venues it may be useful to blend the two, but for most jobs it can only hurt the candidate.

Comment Sounds like extortion to me (Score 3, Informative) 122

Reading the actual notice (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3199120-Cogeco-Settlement-Letter-Blurred.html) it sounds like plain extortion. Personally I would go to the local provincial or federal authorities, and if they say it's illegal, demand that they press charges for extortion. If on the other hand they say it's legal, I'd consult with a lawyer how anyone can submit such settlement proposals, then offer an online service for anyone to submit such settlement proposals to everyone. ISP are required by law to forward them so this should make for a fun DoS attack. Everyone offering to settle with everyone for any potential copyright notices ought to jam the system up fairly quickly. After all, you never know when people may want to violate copyrights of a cat video someone made, so just in case, collect $5,000 so if and when they do you won't sue them.

Comment 60M == 100's of millions. Government overhead? (Score 1) 113

Ok so "software licensing agreements and technical support with an estimated upfront worth of $60 million..." but somehow "six years of unlimited Oracle software and technical support included in the deal will save the state hundreds of millions of dollars in years to come"?

The only thing I can think of that paying those 60 million somehow costs the state of Oregon 100's of millions. That's one hell of of an overhead cost! No wonder they couldn't make the website work, for every $1 in insurance premium collected would have costed the state 10's of dollars I guess. Oracle saved them money by forcing them to go with the federal solution.

Maybe it's like with pumping gas in Oregon, they have laws that state that every check made for software licensing must go though a minimum number of bureaucrats and each bureaucrat has a fixed fee for processing the payment.

Or maybe it's the lawyer speak, "the $1 we save today will save billions" which is technically true if we invest that $1 today and the billions saved are in a billion years or so, assuming low risk returns. After all, this statement did come from an Attorney (General).

Comment Re:They are pledging to something in 30+ years (Score 1) 114

You forgot to mention no consequences whatsoever even if someone does remember in 30 years. They pledge to do something, but commit to nothing if they fail. I pledge I will colonize Mars by 2050, personally, with no help from anyone else. And if I don't, oh well, I pledge it now so until 2050 you gotta give me credit for it.

Comment Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? (Score 2) 410

I don't think this is correct.

Suppose you have to go through a routine IRS audit (you're a business or something so this isn't unusual), and you somehow convince your local IRS representative/auditor to give you a giant break on taxes. The main IRS later finds out about this auditor's actions, deems them illegal, and now wants you to pay your back taxes. Sorry, I don't see a problem with that.

Uhmm... hold on a second here. If it's the local IRS office that closes the deal with you, even if they break the rules, they are the ones breaking rules, not you. Why should you be on the hook for that? If you buy a service from some company for a price they agree on, then their parent company decides you need to pay 10X the price, do you legally now owe that? It sounds like what you're saying is that all deals have to be always approved by the top of the chain. I wonder if the IRS would accept someone telling them "sorry, I am not paying you a penny until my taxes are checked and approved by president Obama".

Comment Re:Big corporation shipping for Xmas season (Score 1) 115

Nothing moral or principled about it. September announcement are just often 11'th hour announcements - chances are things had to get cut, or features compromised in order to hit that last minute (for Xmas consumer device season) time slot. No "moral failing" about it, I just liked apple products when they were released by a perfectionist wanting to release an solid product rather than profiteers wanting to cash in. It's a battle of interests - stock holders vs. customers.

Slashdot Top Deals

"We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievement." -- Richard J. Daley