Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment and what ? (Score 1) 764

Even if it's the russians, or the chinese, or the devil himself - they don't deny that the mails are real, and that is what matters. Who leaked them is an interesting academic question, and it might have influenced the timing, but that's about it.

They are crooked and corrupt and criminals, and no amount of fingerpointing changes that - but given the state of the media and the attention span of the public, it might work anyway.

Someone posted something the other day that was interesting. In essence, the "lesser of two evils" argument doesn't work for Hillary or the Democrats this time.

Comment Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young (Score 1) 297

If we go into more depth on this, I would say that I see self-driving cars more in replacing taxis than busses, but the mental model would need to shift because taxis are considered a bit of a luxury and not public transport.

The point is that a lot of people would consider taking such a system that do not currently consider taking the bus. Especially in cities, where you spend half your driving time searching for a parking space.

Comment Re:never understood (Score 1) 224

Cutting employees doesn't always mean a company is in trouble.

Of course it does. It means either you made terrible hiring choices for a long time in the past, and nobody noticed and stopped it, or your business went down and now you don't have work for people that you had work for before.

Either one means trouble.

Suppose they improved their production process so they are able to be 30% more efficient. Increases in efficiency often mean that fewer people are needed in the process.

You are right, I add a third one: You ran your company inefficiently for a very long time and nobody noticed.

Efficiency improvements in the order of 30% don't appear overnight. They happen slowly and over a long enough time that your workforce can be adapted.

Comment Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young (Score 1) 297

If you give this a moment's thought, you'll understand why it's a bad idea. Everyone needing their own $50,000 vehicle is the opposite of public transportation.

You heard the opposite of what I said. I am talking about self-driving cars as public transport. So instead of 100 busses, you would have 1000 self-driving cars.

So your idea of a driverless car going from "door to door" is a fantasy.

If you think of self-driving cars as a replacement for public transport instead of a replacement for your personal car, initial limitations are absolutely fine. People are used to busses going fixed route, automated taxis driving only a subset of the streets in the city would still be an improvement. The challenge with the Google approach is that it needs to work under ALL circumstances. By reducing "all" to "a defined subset", you make the challenge one or two orders of magnitude easier.

Comment Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young (Score 1) 297

I don't want to see one dollar in public funds spent to develop this technology or to create infrastructure for a self-driving fleet until we've made actual public transportation affordable and viable,

Maybe you got that backwards? Maybe self-driving cars are what will make public transport affordable and viable? The two main criticisms of it are that it doesn't go door-to-door and that you have to share it with other people, not all of whom you want to share it with.

Comment Re:Happens all the time in the private sector (Score 1) 1010

Exactly. The difference between CEO and minister is that the CEO serves the board of directors, but a minister serves the country. With "the country" being an abstract entity, there is no personal supervision, which is why the rules are more important. You can't call up the souvereign (i.e. the people) and ask for permission.

Comment Re:Happens all the time in the private sector (Score 2) 1010

The point is that all executives bend the rules, and the IT staff allow them to because they like being paid.

That's not the reason.

The reason is that top-level management already does carry the risk for things going sideways. It's the difference between being a passenger and being the driver - yes, different rules apply because one is in charge of the machine.

The point that needs change is not that executives have special rules, but that in reality they are often not held responsible when basically their entire job is being responsible.

Would you tell your CEO that he wasn't able to access his email from some unsecure consumer laptop on his private jet?

No, I would tell him to please sign this paper that says he was made fully aware of the risks and is accepting them. My job is to be his advisor, not his nanny.

Disclaimer: That actually is my job.

Comment Re:we're pissed (Score 2) 165

They are exploiting a design flaw in the Bitcoin network. One that was known pretty much from the start. One that was obvious as being a breaking point. As soon as Bitcoin becomes important enough for national governments to worry, you really thought this wouldn't happen? If the USA wants to destroy Bitcoin, they wouldn't turn on the NSA supercomputers as miners for a few days and be done with it? Please.

Comment Re:Yes, definitely assholes (Score 1) 440

"investigation launched" by moron elements of government

Disagree. The NHTS investigation is the right thing to do. They need to do an independent check into the facts and see if there's anything to be learnt here. Now I don't know how good and neutral they are, but if everything is done right, the result could just as well be "well, he was being an idiot and we found no fault with the autopilot system".

Comment Re:This (Score 1) 197

Does cyber security get worse because people will be paid with Pounds instead of Euros?

You were always paid in Pounds in the UK, because the UK was even before the Brexit vote basically half a member in the EU. No Euro, no Schengen zone and a lot of other special rules.

The difference really isn't all that big.

Comment Re:Actual evidence (Score 1) 197

Right on everything, except the globalisation attack.

The problem isn't globalisation. It would've been entirely possible for the entire population to profit from globalisation. If the 1% hadn't decided that they'd rather have all that nice money to themselves.

Here is a pretty good writeup with some graphs:

https://medium.com/@jamesallwo...

Slashdot Top Deals

What hath Bob wrought?

Working...