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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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 I can see it now (Score 1) 20

Just a couple of seconds before the collision the AI releases control of the vehicle back to the human and wakes up Leroy because he ain't never seen no accident like this one. :)

Seriously, this looks like the perfect way for the AI to not be held responsible for any accidents. What are they going to think of when there is no option (no steering wheel, pedals, etc.) for a human to take control?

Comment Re:Oh great! (Score 1) 20

So in the event of potentially unsafe driving conditions, something with the intelligence of a 2-year-old and the strength of 1000 gorillas randomly grabs the wheel from you. I can't see anything that could possibly go wrong with this.

Well, can you see anything that could possibly go wrong by letting the human driver always have his way when milliseconds count? That's what you have to consider: the relative probability of catastrophe in the two scenarios: continued human control vs. automated intervention.

Most people think of themselves as better than average drivers. Most people *are* a better than average driver... on their good days. But it's not their good days they need to be worried about. It's the days when they're harried, distracted and sleep-deprived that the pose a threat to themselves... and others.

Comment Re:Who are these guys? (Score 1) 143

Unless you think that only corporations want "free markets, competition, and individual freedom and liberty". Corporations typically want none of those things.

It's the corporate doubletalk that's confusing the issue.

You're assuming it's doublespeak, and so did jandrese, and I strongly suspect that you're both right, but it is an assumption. There's nothing in the text to make it clear.

Comment Re:What frequency? (Score 3, Informative) 26

Based on this it appears to be 769-798MHz based on the guard bands for FirstNet, so near typical UHF cell network frequencies.

15 years to get this ball rolling. And there's no credible answer for how this will serve anything outside major urban areas. Basically we've found a way to justify nationalizing first responder comms. Henceforth the deals with be handled in Washington by the "right" people. Yay.

Comment Re:How about. . . no. . . (Score 1) 300

. . . does that work for you ? Because it works for me. No crying babies, chatty teens, or rude patrons playing with their smartphones.

Didn't experience any of that in my last trip to the cinema. But then, that was to see Florence Foster Jenkins, so maybe the problem is the movies you're going to.

Comment Re:okay... (Score 1) 300

As well with almost all movies being reboots or remakes, and predictable, and Hey! another Marvel Comics superhero flick! How original!

Or worse yet, when you run out of ideas for new Marvel Comics superhero flicks, you make yet another reboot of a Marvel Comics superhero flick that's already been rebooted before...

Mister Nolan and Ms Coppolla - how much are you going to pay me to go to a theater?

Has Sophia Coppolla actually made any good movies? The only movie of hers I've seen was "The Virgin Suicides", years ago. It sucked. And so did her acting in Godfather III.

Comment Re:I'll decide for myself thanks (Score 1) 300

If I can replicate the experience to a good approximation in my house why would I bother going to a theater and paying a lot of money? Big screen? Got it. Popcorn? Check. Dark room? No problem. Good sound? Probably better than most theaters. What is he really offering me that I don't already have? Give me something more if you want me to make the extra effort to go to a theater.

Oh please, you're ridiculous. Theaters offer many valuable features you simply cannot easily get at home. Here's a few:

* teenagers using cellphones
* screaming kids (esp. in R-rated movies)
* people talking about the movie
* people talking *to* the movie
* arguments between patrons
* patrons shooting each other

Going to a movie at a theater isn't about technical specs, it's about the people there, who you get to have a shared viewing experience with. That's what's so special about going to a theater, and why you can't replicate it at home. At home, it's just a dry, inhuman experience with only you there alone, or maybe 1 or 2 other people. At a theater, you have a whole room full of wonderful people to share that experience with, along with all the other great things that come with being around other humans, including the talking, screaming kids, use of cellphones with bright screens, and shootings.

Comment Re:You may not like this (Score 1) 387

No, it's making up scare stories to tell Group A that Group B hates them and wants them to suffer, now Group A give us power to protect you from Group B. That's exactly what you are doing when you turn a story about the FCC telling ISPs to work through their state governments to manage a subsidy program that it's really about the evil racial hatred Republicans have for blacks. No, it's not. Love you, Bruce, big fan, you're great at the computers but you're an awful mind reader.

Comment Re:Who are these guys? (Score 1) 143

Update: I found the closest thing to a mission statement I could find buried in a wall of text on page 17 of their 2013 tax return.

Although the Phoenix Center does not meet the safe harbor test for public support (33-1/3%) in 2013, it believes that the following facts and circumstances support the organization's continuance as a public charity. The Phoenix Center has grown and developed since its inception to become a voice for consumer welfare by promoting free markets, competition, and individual freedom and liberty.

In other words, its exacta what everyone thinks. This is yet another one of those corporate mouthpiece "think tanks" that release studies to push a corporate agenda.

I think you're right about that, but that's not what the text says. Unless you think that only corporations want "free markets, competition, and individual freedom and liberty". Corporations typically want none of those things. They like markets that benefit them at the expense of their competitors, not free markets, and they'd love to have no competition. They tend not to care much about individual freedom and liberty, except to the degree that their directors feel personally strong about such issues.

Comment Re:I posit that (Score 1) 143

If YouTube were to pay the recorded music industry market rates, similar to what other streaming services pay, its economic contributions to the sector would be 0. This would be so because YouTube would simply not allow copyright music on its service.

But YouTube actually does pay the industry. Most of the time, if you post a copyrighted song the copyright owner doesn't bother filing a DMCA takedown request, YouTube just informs you that your video contains copyrighted material and that instead of paying you for any ad revenue from views, YouTube pays the copyright holder. I've made a few videos for weddings and funerals, set to music, and that's the case for all of my videos. I don't care. I didn't make them to make money but to honor the people in them, and being able to use the subjects' favorite music and allow the copyright holder to get paid for that use is perfectly acceptable to me.

Are the rates YouTube pays "market rates"? Beats me. They're the rates that the copyright holders agreed to, which makes them "market rates" by definition, doesn't it?

It's not clear to me what the author of this paper is talking about, exactly. Is he talking about revenue lost to copyright holders tho haven't bothered to register their material with YouTube so it can be automatically identified and paid for? Is he talking about revenue lost to copyright holders because YouTube's systems fail to identify their material? The most likely thing, based on the summary, (no, I did not RTFA), is that he believes that if YouTube had to pre-vet content to avoid being sued for inadvertently hosting infringing material, then YouTube would simply not exist and that record labels would instead be able to run their own services and charge whatever they wanted.

I agree that if you allow the record labels complete control, they can find more ways to extract revenue. I don't agree that that's a good thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any given program will expand to fill available memory.

Working...