Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:It's not what Google wants.... (Score 1) 376

Yeah. I know Google is collecting a lot of my data, however I also trust their privacy policy and the documentation they've provided on their architecture, and overall - what Google is doing with my data is overwhelmingly positive. Automagically parsing my flight reservation emails and putting up my flight's departure time and gate on my watch without me going through ANY effort to search is nice. Popping up my store loyalty card when I walk in is nice. Giving me an "accident on your current road" even when I haven't fired up Navigation is nice.

Comment Re:It's not what Google wants.... (Score 2) 376

Yeah. This is useful for lots of automated diagnostics functions.

Also, SOME of that data (not all of it) is highly beneficial for augmenting navigation systems (most notably, vehicle speedometer and steering position). Google even explicitly mentioned how this data would be used by Android Auto in a presentation somewhere (I don't have the link to it now...) It's hinted at a bit past one minute in to but I'm fairly certain I saw a presentation somewhere explicitly stating that vehicle GPS, steering position, and wheel speed would be used for location sensor fusion.

Comment Re:Energy density isn't the important bit (Score 1) 147

Yeah. High-current/high-energy-density batteries are, by the nature of how they are designed, prone to catastrophic failure if something causes the components to short together.

It's nearly impossible to make it "not explosive" without also making it "not nearly as useful".

Comment Re:Stupid comparisons (Score 2) 345

This is partly why one of the more common statistics is fatalities per passenger-mile.

I am fairly certain the 747 wins by a significant margin here as most 747 airframes were used more frequently than the Concorde (more flights per week) and typically flew longer distances (747 was a transpacific workhorse, Concorde was only used for transatlantic flights.)

Comment Re:65 VW Bug (Score 4, Insightful) 373

Yeah. Automotive electronics are designed to be pretty EMP-resistant from the beginning because the ignition coils produce what amounts to small EMPs - and they're connected to the power rails!

Automotive engine compartments are one of the most electrically noisy environments out there.

As far as a "hacker-safe" car - buy a car WITHOUT those snazzy remote management features like uConnect/OnStar/etc. All of the remote compromises out there have used those "it's not a bug, it's a feature!" attack routes.

Comment Re:Sounds Great (Score 4, Informative) 66

Um, no, a 1000 unit vial (10 mL of U-100) costs $25 for regular and NPH insulins. (If you're paying more than this, blame the pharmacy. This is one of the few cases where I root for Walmart - they've managed to get Novo onboard with selling Novolin R and N for $25/vial)

Unless you're purchasing Lantus or Novolog/Humalog (which most diabetics including myself are), which are MUCH newer than 1978 and still have active patents. (Some of Lantus' are about to expire or recently expired, but Novartis played some legal games to manage to block generic Lantus from the market until late 2016...) Even after "generics" of the "designer" insulins launch, the FDA's rules on "biosimilars" are going to slow down this market. (IIRC, generic Lantus IS available in India at significantly reduced prices.)

Comment Re:Faa rules for RC planes (Score 1) 1197

I don't see a single one of these that the pilot definitively violated. "Don't fly near people or stadiums" is the only thing he might have violated, depending on where in this guy's yard it was. (I don't consider shotgun range to be "near enough to be dangerous" - well for danger to people from the aircraft. Obviously the shotgun is dangerous).

What if he was taking pictures of the neighbor's house, at the request of the neighbor? (In fact this is what he claims he was doing.)

Comment Re:Or... just hear me out here... (Score 2) 1197

To play devil's advocate:

The drone pilot claims he was asked by one of the people in the neighborhood to take some pictures. I've done this before.

In the case of the guy with the shotgun - can he confirm that the camera was indeed pointed towards him, as opposed to someone else's house (that someone else who could have given permission and possibly even requested the photography)? Same for the 16 year old who waved at it - did she know for sure that she was seen on camera, or was the camera aimed elsewhere and it's just coincidence the pilot moved the thing for a different camera angle after a bit?

That said, if you're trying to take pictures of friend A's house, and want to get an oblique (from the side view) shot which requires you to be over the neighbor's property but with the camera aimed at A's property - you should probably chat with A's neighbors just to give them a heads up what you're doing.

Another megabytes the dust.