Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:So they didn't enable cheat mode (Score 3, Insightful) 246

Sounds to me (with the limited info in the summary) that developer mode was constantly reloading page icons?

Their use of this developer setting also triggered an obscure and intermittent bug reloading icons which created inconsistent results in their lab

That would obviously chew up battery life downloading icons over and over again, chewing up CPU cycles to refresh the icon on the window, and chew up wifi power because its easy to see how a stuck loop re-downloading icons could cycle thousands or millions of times.

Good for Consumer Reports for sticking to their guns, seeing an issue, reporting the issue, and forcing Apple to fix it. It's obscure sure. But many developers probably use Safari Developer Mode to work on their projects, and this will help them.

Comment Re:Over/under: Invasion of sovereign nation or tru (Score 5, Insightful) 821

This. I don't understand Democrats these days. This isn't a team sport. This is our lives. How can you be silent when you have learned what your party was up to? They were conspiring to undermine you, the Democrat voter. Where is the outrage?

When I read the stories about the NSA, the five-eyes, the affront to the 4th amendment. I was outraged. I think Edward Snowden is a hero for going against some very very powerful forces and revealing what was happening in our own country against us by the leviathan. Russia did that for the democratic party. You can't be against Russia's hacking, but for Edward Snowden. They play the same character in this one.

Comment Re:Don't forget (Score 1, Troll) 351

It's this fallacy that free markets can't fix what regulation can that puts us in trouble. Of course the free market can fix this. In no place is it unregulated and free to operate. It is however better to have a relatively free "regulated" market, than only a black market.

Supply would meet demand once the price stabilizes.

Comment Re:Wrong (Score 1) 351

Right. But no. I've thought about the economics and if you view this as a part of a bigger problem (overregulation), then you don't fall into the trap and see a sex market as any different than any other "free" market. It is a clear cut decision. Sex trafficking will stop because the costs to maintain a sex trafficking operation are too high to incur if your profit is restricted by the availability of the "legit" provider.

To put some numbers in:

Say a sex trafficker spends $50 recruiting, kidnapping, transporting, drugging, and providing for a girl (as measured per "service").

Then say he can offer her services out for $100. He makes $50.

But now that prostitution is legalized, he has to compete in a market. The price falls down to $80. But his customers don't get the comfort of a "legit, no worries" operation, he can not competitively advertise, he has no web presence, and so his customer acquisition costs are higher, also he has to reduce down to $60.

He now only makes $10, but he burdens enormous risk for that $10. He will be dissuaded from continuing to operate.

Comment Re:Don't forget (Score 5, Insightful) 351

Supply would meet demand, and price would adjust up and down. If the price rises (because as you assert there is more demand than there would be supply), then you would have more entrants due to the supply/demand imbalance. This would cause a "provider's market", and the high rates would entice more women to provide. If the price falls, then the supply would fall. That will ebb and flow until the market reaches a supply/demand balance, and adjust accordingly from there.

Comment Re:Don't forget (Score 5, Insightful) 351

If they really really REALLY wanted to stop human trafficking they would legalize prostitution. For product / demand you make illegal, there will form a black market for it illegally. Those black markets don't worry about prescription drug benefits, unionization, or any other form of worker safety and security. Legalized prostitution would stop the suffering of those who are at the bottom (pun intended) of the illegal sex traffic rings.

Comment Re: Basic small-government argument. (Score 1) 357

No moron. I'm saying without a problem, we shouldn't introduce legislation "just because we can". If there is a problem, and it is not fixed by the counts (wrongful death, gross negligence, found liable for...), then legislators should act to fix the problem. Just because you can make a law doesn't mean you have to or should. There are laws already in place and they protect us to a suffficnent degree.

Comment Re: Basic small-government argument. (Score 0) 357

If the autonomous vehicle follows all the rules already in place, then it shouldn't be prohibited. Why change the rules just because of how it works? The rules are the rules.

The government has set the rules already, and the rules state that the operator is the one responsible. We already know this. Its right there in the drivers handbook!

Comment Re:Threat of liability is not enough (Score 1) 357

As long as Uber (or anyone else for that matter) meets those criteria already established, and validly registers the vehicle (to ascertain ownership in the event of an issue on the road), I don't see the need for additional regulation.

I do. We're talking about unproven technology operating the vehicle in a location that could result in physical harm to others. I absolutely want the government breathing down their necks to ensure that they are taking appropriate precautions to ensure public safety. I don't give a shit if they have insurance and a pile of cash. That doesn't bring people back from the dead after a wreck.

If Uber (or others) want to play on public roads with experimental equipment then a little oversight is completely justified.

But people die anyway. If your requirement is that unless you can absolutely guarantee that no one will be hurt you can not operate, then people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars either. Fail.

Certainly not until the situation gets out of hand, which it won't.

That is a bogus assertion that you cannot possibly back up. There is a very real chance that someone might get hurt by one of their vehicles.

No. No no. There is an absolute chance that someone will get hurt. Thats why there is financial compensation to make whole as best as possible those you are responsible for hurting. Same thing happens when you kill someone on the road. You are responsible. So Uber would be also. These cars will however be so much safer than humans in due time, that it will flip and become criminal to allow a person to drive, because of the difference in risk a human will be on the road compared to an autonomous vehicle with a decade of development, improvement, and infrastructure integration.

The liability these companies are taking by having their cars on the road is enough to make them take all the proper precautions.

Bullshit. Companies take risks that injure people all the time and the mere threat of liability is demonstrably not enough to stop them. Especially if the profit from their actions exceeds the likely cost of the liability. Ask GM about their ignitions and let me know how much the threat of liability helped the people who are now dead.

Stop being so sensationalist. GM would not have committed the engineering mistake if it could have avoided it, and the ignition defect didn't contribute to GM's profits as you are alleging. Oh, and the government DOES regulate the safety of vehicles and still missed GMs ignition flaw. But thats not the point. Mistakes will be made. Their CEO will have "Your holding it wrong" gaffs, and yes people will be hurt and killed. But over the arc of time, these cars will become safer. Companies that make and use them have an incentive beyond liability in making them safe. Reputation can kill in a capitalist free market. You can't possibly call bullshit on that one, or maybe you are just a member of the Teamsters?

Slashdot Top Deals

MATH AND ALCOHOL DON'T MIX! Please, don't drink and derive. Mathematicians Against Drunk Deriving