Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:there's no conspiracy (Score 1) 226

imagine if mobile data service was non-proprietary: your phone simply negotiated a 5 minute service contract with the set of carriers it could detect at the moment, wherever you happen to be. (voice and text would simply layer over data, of course.) yes, that sort of thing is obvious to any techie as The Right Way, but it's our fault that the public has gone along the proprietary route: we need to speak up.

There's precedence for this. Imagine that every broadcast system, AM, FM and TV used it's own frequencies and protocols. If you wanted to watch CBS you'd need a different TV from the one that watches ABC. Exclusive deals would be made, and some TVs could receive NBC, FOX and ABC, but some would only receive independents. That's what's happening with Internet TV right now. The thought is we're still in the shakeout phase, but once the great ideas bubble to the top, everything will work. But with exclusive contracts, it's possible that there will never be one (inexpensive) platform that will display all internet broadcasts.

Comment Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? (Score 1) 648

never sure why weapons that use a small explosive charge to propel a metal slug are particularly special in this regard

Arms aren't "weapons that use a small explosive charge to propel a metal slug".

Arms are weapons that you can carry. Cannon are weapons that need help. (horse & or carriage)

Individuals were allowed to own weapons they could carry, but not the big stuff. Your example is apt. The Supremes have decided that some small weapons *could* be regulated, regardless of the 2nd amendment. No backpack nukes.

Comment Re:Seems contradictory (Score 3, Informative) 466

From the original article:

As the United Kingdom's National Grid operators have found, a small decline in electricity consumption does not translate into less energy being pumped into the grid, and therefore will not reduce emissions

The article didn't say, "almost zero" emission reductions, it claimed zero.

The reality is that the original article is lying by omission. Yes, if one person turns off one 100 watt bulb, the generating plants don't burn any less fuel, what happens is everyone else's bulbs get a few millionths of a volt more, and put out a few millionths more lumens. No-one notices.

If *everyone* turns off every light bulb in their house, then there should be a noticeable drop in load at the generators, and less fuel should be burned. Energy companies could also shift load from the more expensive generator stations.

Anyway, this is an example of Poe's law.

Comment Re:don't rule out (Score 1) 160

That's the best idea so far. A few machines that students can trash are invaluable. If the students spend most of the time tearing it down, and rebuilding the cluster, it's not going to use much power.

You could have them predict what changing CPU/Memory/Interconnect will do to performance, then make them try it out. Put some *Science* into Computer Science.

Comment Re:Don't do it (Score 2) 160

How do you check motherboards for bad capacitors?

Bulges are bad. Leaks are bad. If the smoke has been released, doubly bad.

Other than that, you have to know what voltage is supposed to be on them, and measure it. If you still suspect something use a scope. Worst case, you have to desolder it, then check it's value and ESR. Mostly, I don't bother, I just replace suspect caps until whatever is working.

Comment Re:Doubt it (Score 1) 126

Very few diseases are due to simple genetic factors, and those already have dedicated tests. Genotyping may eventually become a big part of medicine, but not until there is a LOT more research done into how to use it, a lot more data available, and a lot better techniques for using it.

Right now, the genetic tests still cost $1000's, any may not be covered by insurance. (At least for what I might have)

A sub $1000 test for *everything* could save some people a lot of money.

The trick is getting the insurance companies to use genetic testing to help people instead of simply excluding the high risk patients. (The most recent bill in congress banned health insurance exclusion, but not life or long term care)

Comment Re:original assignee.. (Score 1) 196

They still have to exploit the patent, ie. make a product.

nb. This assumes the Slashdot summary is accurate and there's no hidden loopholes.

But that product doesn't have to actually *work*.

Also, they'd probably only have to offer the product for sale. Actual customers wouldn't be necessary.

Or two separate patent trolls get into the business of building products and selling exactly one each to each other for $1,000,000. If the law tries to prevent this, they use 3 trolls and a few shell corporations so they are all classified "Practicing Entities".

Comment Re:Or the summary is misleading propaganda (Score 2) 333

... Is that algorithm obvious? Several Slashdot commentors who say the are programmers read the explanation of the algorithm and still didn't understand it at all. One might say that if it's explained to you and you don't "get it", it's probably not obvious.

There's a fine line between clever and stupid. If an average programmer reads the explanation, and "Doesn't get it", it could be either. Most patents are very poor explanations for what they are about.

Comment Re:Anyone who doesn't like electric cars (Score 1) 609

If it has a gas engine, in what way is it "100% electric"? That's a headscratcher for me.

AFAIK, if the engine in a VOLT fails, you can still go. With a Prius you're stranded.

I'd like to see an electric car that has 4 motors, one for each wheel. Add redundant control electronics and you could have 50% systems failure and still be able to get home.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any given program will expand to fill available memory.

Working...