Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:No, Just No (Score 1) 305

Well, no necessarily. You see, when full autonomous vehicles ride, there is the question of who pays for an accident if it was the "fault" of the autonomous driver. In could be Tesla, possibly by law. If it is, they can certainly restrict the kind of uses of the car, to be covered by that insurance. That's a still-to-be-decided practicality of autonomous cars, and one that will provide us with hours of entertainment.

Comment This time is different (Score 2) 902

I suppose it's impossible to stop people from feeling that this time is different, but it's never different. According to Wikipedia:

In 1870, almost 50 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture.[16] As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture.

The unemployment rate has shrugged off that "job disappearance", somehow. Now other swathes of jobs will also disappear, and people will find other things to do. There is nothing different about this new "technical revolution".

Comment Re:I want to buy Twitter. (Score 1) 313

In principle, if you buy a company, your risk exposure is limited to your investment (that's what the "limited" in the companies' names mean). That's why you don't lose your house when you own stock in a company, even if it goes bust with billions in debt (see Enron there).

Of course if the investment is big and/or you intend to use capital to prop up it, or you incorporate it in your own company, the risks are different. But for a private person, the $5 bill is all you are to lose there. And you could censor all the tweets you didn't like in the meantime!

Comment That would help logistics too (Score 5, Interesting) 159

The only part of a laptop that has to be changed for each country is the keyboard, hampering logistics. If you can have a software-configurable keyboard, that would help reduce costs for unsold laptops, stock breaks, etc. Even in no application ever uses the facility, just that advantage should be enough, once you get to the right price-durability-functionality combo.

Also the resale value would be increased, as you can now sell it in any country.

Comment I have always wondered... (Score 4, Interesting) 221

...why this wasn't more widely used, specially by the US. It's the logical development from the "big drone bomb". A swarm of small drones with cameras and explosives locate the enemy, approach it, stick to it, and explode. You don't need a big charge for that, as you are sticking to the enemy. The enemy can blow up a couple of the drones, but you have tens in each operation. No civilian casualties, no risk to your own troops. You force the enemy to get out of sight where it cannot maneuver. You make thousands of the things and they go always ahead of the troops, to minimize risk. It seems such a no-brainer that the only thing I can think of, is that the developed armies are waiting to have good counter-measures for them before deploying it.

Comment You have to own your mail domain (Score 1) 205

My first mail address was furnished by my bank, as a free service, not even tied to you remaining in the bank, in a neutral domain name. In those times, it seemed like a good idea to have it, as good free e-mail was then a scarce commodity.

Fast forward six years and the beginning of gmail, and they decide to drop the service. They didn't even transfer the domain to other service provider. They did a very lame thing of offering you another free service with a different domain. My inconveniences retiring that account were considerable, and to date I don't know if I lost any business due to some old contact not being able to mail me.

From them on, I have my own domain name, and a service provider that gives me mail services for that domain, for a small fee. I run now little risk of that kind of problems.

Comment Let's be serious (Score 2) 1042

If we lived in a computer simulation, surely we would have some remaining concept of a Scientist that created the Simulation, and us inside it. The Scientist, who can change the software parameters, and can do absolutely anything in our Universe, and knows everything too, but limits His own powers to observe what we do, and, even if He knows the end result, let us choose our destiny with free will (FreeWill_Parameter = True).

As no such idea exists anywhere, I guess it's safe to say that we aren't in a simulation.

Comment Re:Ramifactions for the Future of Gaming (Score 1) 170

Suddenly current anti-cheating technologies mean nothing, and enough people using these would quick ruin a game.

Contrariwise, imagine a world where you can play in your computer against any number of AI opponents, regulated to the level that makes the game interesting to you. Then you don't need other people and cheating becomes meaningless, as it should be in a game.

Comment Re:Whoopty Doo (Score 3, Insightful) 843

People well and truly vote for candidates in the USA, and in general they seem to be confused at situations like Australia or the UK where we vote for parties.

Sorry to disagree, but that doesn't check with the fact that, in the USA, only candidates from the two big parties have a chance to run successfully for the presidency. If people really voted for candidates, then an independent candidate would have an even chance of winning, and that's absolutely not the case. Even in this election, with two deeply flawed candidates, independents cannot even make it to the TV live debate.

Comment Re:Whoopty Doo (Score 5, Insightful) 843

People don't vote candidates, in general. They vote if they are happy about how things are, or if they are not. Usually, is the incumbent (I'm happy about how things are in MY life), or the challenger (I'm not happy, let's change something).

In this particular case the incumbent cannot run, so the proxy is the candidate of the same party. Also, people suspect that the usual challengers are not really a change at all. But in this case it is, or at least it appears to be. So the excitement about it.

Voting or defending Trump has nothing to do with Trump, really, and all to do with a desire for profound change. The people express that desire in the only way that the election game allows them, and that's not a good way, that's for sure, but it's the only one.

You are surprised of intelligent people defending Trump, and I am surprised of how this blatant fact, the desire, of so many people, for many current politics to change or reverse course, is completely bypassed by the media, that chooses to center in the, admittedly rather pathetic, personification of that desire. That's an ad-hominem fallacy if I ever saw one, and you fall into that trap and try to keep the discussion there (the person), instead of on the politics.

Slashdot Top Deals

Everybody likes a kidder, but nobody lends him money. -- Arthur Miller