Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Car dealerships will lose in Federal court (Score 3, Interesting) 253

Car dealerships will lose in Federal court because it's harder to bribe the Feds.

Car dealerships are generally the most consistent donors to local politicians, and thus are pretty much insulated from adverse laws at the local and state level. They haven't been as active at the Federal level, but if Tesla wins expect that to change...a lot.

Dealers are slow to pick up on the negative effects of self-driving cars, but once they do they'll also start their Federal lobbying campaign.

Comment The future of automobiles? Govt fleets (Score 1) 274

The future of automobiles will be autonomous fleets run by your government entity.


Because it's safer and more cost effective. You need a car because you need to go from point A to point B. What if you had the convenience of a cab without the cost? What if you could it whenever you wanted, and didn't have to wait for a scheduled pickup like a bus?

And what if the roadways were reserved for these cars and "manual drivers" only had one lane of road?

Why wouldn't you use the car service?

Instead of spending money on your car, you could spend it on something else.

The fleet would be all-electric, of course. If you needed longer trips you'd go to a normal car-rental place.

And of course you could always have your car - at a cost. A very high cost. Your insurance premium would be sky-high, because 90% of drivers would opt for the cheaper, more convenient automated fleet.

Your house would be bigger, because you wouldn't need a garage.

You'd have more money (maybe), because you wouldn't have to operate your car. OTOH your taxes would be higher, since the govt would be operating the cars for you.

I think it'd be great.

Comment "Spirit of the Law" is BS (Score 4, Insightful) 579

There is no such thing as "the spirit of the law." That's a weasel phrase used by people that don't like the outcome. The reason the law is written down is so that there is no ambiguity.

There may be hundreds of people voting for a given law, and each one has his or her reason for voting on that law. Do you mean to say that when adjudicating a case you need to take the personal opinion of every lawmaker into account? That would be the true "spirit of the law."

If you do that, then what's the point of the law in the first place?

Comment Reporters and the FDA are incorrect (Score 4, Informative) 248

The press, being the idiots that they are, don't realize that the FDA doesn't have jurisdiction over "soap." The FDA isn't helping by trying to broaden their reach.

Their order says "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today issued a final rule establishing that over-the-counter (OTC) consumer antiseptic wash products containing certain active ingredients can no longer be marketed."

That is not soap. In fact, the FDA says it has no jurisdiction over soap, which is confusing because on various webpages they say "Soap," and they do so in the title of said order as well.

Here's the FDA's explanation of Soap:

Here's the part that's relevant.

"Not every product marketed as soap meets FDA's definition of the term. FDA interprets the term "soap" to apply only when

the bulk of the nonvolatile matter in the product consists of an alkali salt of fatty acids and the product's detergent properties are due to the alkali-fatty acid compounds, and the product is labeled, sold, and represented solely as soap [21 CFR 701.20].

Products that meet this definition of soap are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission disclaimer icon (CPSC), not by FDA. Please direct questions about these products, such as safety and labeling requirements, to CPSC. "

Slashdot Top Deals

Save the whales. Collect the whole set.