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


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:Background and the real issue (Score 0, Offtopic) 133

I'm sure you're reasonably well-off, Bruce. You're welcome to pay for broadband for all your neighbors if you wish to do so.

You don't get to tell me that I have to do so. And you certainly don't get to call me a racist, or claim that I'm trying to oppress people, if I don't agree with you.

Comment Re:So backwards... (Score 3, Insightful) 227

Well, now you're making a very different argument than the original "companies should not profit from products that might kill people." But I'll bite anyway. There are plenty of products that, though used correctly, can under some circumstances cause injury or death.

A very obvious one is medication. There are many medications that can have serious side effects, including death, when taken exactly as prescribed. We continue to use them because the benefits outweigh the risks.

You mentioned chainsaws. It is true that the majority of chainsaw accidents happen because of operator error. However, that doesn't mean that all of them do. The only way to completely eliminate the possibility of harm is to not use a chainsaw. But again, we continue to use them because the benefits are big enough.

There does need to be a standard for how safe autonomous vehicles need to be before we allow them on the roads. But setting that standard at "they need to never cause a death" is not only unrealistic, it is totally inconsistent with how our society deals with other potentially dangerous products.

Comment Re:Not hard to fix... (Score 2) 543

The problem is that it requires a Republican Congress to vote in favor of something that lets corporations get away with being stingy. Trump might decide to support it because he doesn't like Silicon Valley, but I can't imagine a Republican Congress siding with the little guy when it comes to money.

Comment Re:Can we please have that here in California? (Score 1) 180

1) Maybe the cop has sat behind cars that just sit there when the light changes because the driver is busy on their phone.

If he was citing those who were causing a traffic obstruction, I would have no objection to it.

2) If said person suddenly notices that the light has changed and hits the gas w/out checking to see that the way is clear, it does become a safety issue.

The same is true for someone who is not texting and doesn't check that the way is clear. If they cause an accident (or the cop sees them doing that), then sure, give them a ticket for it.

Comment Re:Can we please have that here in California? (Score 2) 180

There is a safety concern, though - they are in charge of a vehicle on the public road, and have to react to their surroundings in order to prevent accidents.

There is no realistic situation where somebody stopped at a stoplight needs to "react to their surroundings in order to prevent accidents." I defy you to find one documented case where somebody texting or using their phone while stopped at a stoplight was at fault for an accident.

Comment Re:Can we please have that here in California? (Score 0) 180

There was a cop in Atlanta I think that made a point of getting people stopped at lights or stop signs that were texting. He got droves of them. Most people believe it's only while you're moving but that's not the case.

That may be the law, but that cop was a jerk. There's no real safety concern with people texting while stopped at a stoplight. Singling that out for special enforcement -- that's just jackass behavior of someone with a little power and an axe to grind.

Slashdot Top Deals

The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky