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. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 248

I personally would assume we always assign primary responsibility to the owner/operator. It is their responsibility when buying/operating to do their due diligence on is it safe/legal... If the manufacture sells the vehicle under false pretenses then the person/company with the business contact should settle with the injured party, then seek compensation as needed. Of course if the owner cannot cover the damages, then sure bring the manufacture in directly.

I still think the most difficult part is going to be on expected minimal reactions. Very few auto accidents have a single contributing factor, so when a road isn't properly maintained, sun is interrupting optical sensors, a truck stops in a intersection, and autopilot drives into the side of the semi without trying to avoid the accident. The primary responsibility will still be the truck driver, as they started the chain reaction with a illegal move.

Of course the manufacture will be expected to take corrective actions, or risk direct action against them to force it. Regulations will need to evolve to apply this pressure, to keep a constantly improving minimum standard of safety.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 2) 248

The manufacture is going to call it a limitation, and the manufacture is going to have all of the data in a format that no one else can interpret without their help.

Like the Tesla crash, the engineers cannot cover every situation with the optimal solution in a finite amount of time. And even if they could, their would still be accidents that those who don't understand the technology will think is a obvious fault. If it is much safer overall than a human driver, it would be wrong to not release the software, even if it has obvious limitations that will eventually result in a accident.

Comment Re:constitutional protections don't apply (Score 1) 512

FYI, when ACLU called this a constitution free zone, it was fully tongue in cheek. As I understand it as more of a reasonable grounds to extra search vs a citizens right to be secure in their possessions trade off. Those in the country not being infringed with a insecure border, over the rights of those traveling to not be bothered. They have already pushed the bounds further by having a $2k fine for not fully cooperating with TSA; likely claiming it is a civil action not covered by right to council... But laws like you describe would still violate the Constitution, at least as of the rulings before today.

Comment constitutional protections don't apply (Score 2) 512

> You have very few rights there

This does apply to them searching your phone, you have no choice. But it doesn't really apply to US citizens on giving up your password, if you have some time to spare that is. They cannot deny a citizen entry without cause, they can deny them their possessions or hold them for a "reasonable time." So eventually they have to allow citizens out of the constitution free zone, and into the US. Although they may be able to force you to give a fingerprint.

Of course this only applies to US citizens and US customs. Other countries are under no such consideration. But I am not sure many have any protections from search anywhere.

Comment Re: Yay! Cruelty-free bacon! (Score 1) 126

Your right, the worst of the meat is likely worse than the worst of the vegetables for impact. But, trying to say their should be no chicken, fish, or pork just because a very small portion of the beef is grown in CA and it shouldn't be grown in that one place, just is not a good argument. The majority of winter vegetables are grown in these places that are not sustainable, that should be minimized. The worst of the meat should be minimized as well. But Bison has grazed the plains of Wyoming long before people farmed. To say we cannot sustain-ably make that part of the national diet would be folly IMHO.

Comment Re: Yay! Cruelty-free bacon! (Score 1) 126

> they can digest a lot of plant matter that we can't.

Also a lot of the reason we eat meat is also that it winters well and stores well. Fresh fruit and vegetables in NY in February is being grown on mostly naturally arid land in Arizona and California watered from unsustainable water sources... and then shipped across the country using tons of fuel. Where as meat stores and ships per calorie, per nutrient much cheaper as it is more dense. Granted canning and freezing of some fruits and veges works well also. But it seams we need more GMO improvements and sustainable veggie growth for a vegan diet to be as sustainable as a sensible meat diet (preferably not beef in most areas though.)

Comment Re:i love min wage no benefits and crap hours too (Score 1) 114

You might want to check your source (unless it is straight out of the ass) and do a little more intelligent reading. part time unemployment went up 0.5% during Obamacare. And that is attributed more to people like me, who didn't need a full time job, except to get affordable insurance. I am now trying to build my own business instead of needing a full time job, that didn't leave time to try my own thing.

Comment Re:It may have been humans (Score 3, Insightful) 176

> It is possible that a short lived disaster could have caused the die off. Something like a nearby super volcano or an asteroid impact.

They found evidence of a constant decrease in populations over thousands of years, without a corresponding climatic change. It is possible, or perhaps likely that a event like that finished them off. But something other than climate change pushed these local populations to the brink first, and it started at the same time as humans showed up.

Comment Re:Well yeah.... (Score 4, Informative) 125

> For example, they don't care whether it's a 1.6-2.0 liter 4 cylinder in a 3000lb car that gets 50mpg or a 7 liter V8 in a 7000lb package that gets 15-20mpg.

Not sure who the "they" you refer to is. In the US EPA cares, the have CAFE standards, and the Estimated fuel economy is used to calculate the allowed CO2 emissions per mile. Other emissions are not directly tied to fuel economy, but hitting the above standard closes the loop.
  These standards
apply to model years 2009 through 2016
and require CO2 emissions for passenger
cars and the smallest light trucks of 323
g/mi in 2009 and 205 g/mi in 2016, and
for the remaining light trucks of 439 g/
mi in 2009 and 332 g/mi in 2016

Comment Re:Double edged sword (Score 3, Informative) 164

Sorry boss, despite your arrogance and confidence, your more wrong than right. I have done SAE brake certifications for off and on road vehicles. Most vehicles probably could not be brought to a complete stop from speed if they engine was at full power by brakes alone. The 2 problem are: 1) the brakes do not have sufficient cooling, the engine/transmission have much better cooling, and thus can produce power for a longer time period. Most brakes cannot sustain high power for more than a minute before fading, and will eventually fail all together. Also (for most vehicles) the brakes do not have the same mechanical advantage, since they are at the wheels, and do not have a gear reduction. They apply a fixed maximum torque, at 60 MPH my pickups brakes could produce 800 HP in braking force, but at 10 MPH that would be closer to 100 HP. My trucks engine can easily produce 250 HP at the rear wheels, down to about 5 mph, due to it having real low gearing for towing. If in my pickup the brakes came on full at 70 mph at full throttle, it would take a fairly long stop to get down to 15- 25 mph or so before they would equallize, until the brakes faded and failed, then It would accelerate again. This balance will vary widely based on the power and gearing of the vehicle, but most cars would be pretty iffy on if they could be brought to a complete stop, almost all would slow to fairly slow speed though. Of course at these low speeds, it wouldn't take much outside force to stop the vehicle.

Comment Re:Translation (Score 1) 357

Personally I think it is a series of logical steps that lead to why permitting should be better. The first question is should UBER be treated differently than other companies (smaller and larger.) If no, then next question:
Should anyone be able to test autonomous and driver aids mixed with public traffic? IE can I setup a LLC have it borrow some money to buy some cars, and get the licensed in registered in the cheapest state to get minimal liability insurance through some bonds on a few cars, and start sending people in traffic testing, and acting as a taxi service accepting money from Californians.
If the answer to both of them is no, then oversight is needed, and the next logical question to ask, is should the California taxpayers pay for this oversight, or should it be payed for by the companies standing to directly profit from it?

Regardless the answers to those questions, it is still best for expectations to be set, to avoid unnecessary risks. If we have rules setup for the testing of a inherently dangerous task, which driving cars qualifies as, then it helps both the company, and the public, and the customers to have a decent set of rules set. IE if UBER follows a set of rules developed by a governing body, they are more likely to win a lawsuit against them by showing that. If they follow those rules, they public and customers are less likely to be injured or otherwise suffer a loss. If UBER sets it's own rules, they alone assume the blame for any holes in those rules.

If that is not what California has done for UBER, and the state. Then UBER should be making that case, not the case that they are allowed to do whatever they want in the sandbox that is California.

Comment Re:Not the only thing we've lost. (Score 1) 279

I did detect a bit of sarcasm in your post. But clearly it is about keeping a base that is controlled by christian leaders.

Conservatives want the church to be in charge of sex, and sex education. Their goal isn't to reduce casual sex, abortion, etc. The goal is that those remain a sin with punishments, that you feel the need to go to church and ask for forgiveness and tithe; That people see their personal happiness are in the hands of the church (provided by/in charge.) That will give the strongest connection to religion, and the easiest to suppress and manipulate. If they allow science to drive sex education and to remove the punishments, and social media to take over socialization, then christian churches and the republican base will not be strong.

Comment Re:Great! (Score 1) 176

I am for solar subsidies, but danbert8 did already respond to OP with how the numbers you used are being misrepresented. Almost all of the "trillion in subsidies" to oil is subsidies to customers, tax free diesiel for farmers, oil bought for our national defense for the petroleum reserve, tax breaks for other customers based on their oil consumption. This drives up the cost of oil, which does benefit big oil indirectly. Where as the Solar subsidies are direct to producers, to lower the cost of solar. So if we did away with the oil subsidies, the price of oil would go down making it more competitive to solar. Where as the solar subsidies drive the price of solar down, making it more competitive.

Comment Re:Perceptual or cryptographic hash? (Score 1) 262

> cope with slight changes to text.

That is interesting, for a short enough article, a single comma or letter can switch a article from true to false. Similar with a photo, it will likely match a photo edited to turn a fist into a flip off, or a mirror to make the left hand salute vs right hand, added a nip slip...

Get your edit close enough to be a match, and you'll ride the positive Karma from the original, or bring the original down with your falsified one.Then again it isn't all that difficult with any single hash, to make a collision as well.

Definitely not as easy as it seams at first glance. I guess that is why this article is about a test phase, and not a new feature.

Slashdot Top Deals

While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.