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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Simple Explanation (Score 5, Insightful) 233

by Zak3056 (#48919671) Attached to: Gamma-ray Bursts May Explain Fermi's Paradox

More simple explanation: Life is out there, it's just too far away to detect, or to visit us--and will ALWAYS be so, because you can't cheat Newton and Einstein. An alternate "simplest" explanation (though less likely) is that we are first.

To suggest that ET hasn't come to visit us because we are "too violent" or whatever, and that they are masking their presence is definitely NOT the simplest explanation--it suggests that every nearby alien species has agreed to isolate us, and every member of those civilizations is on board with the idea. No one is out there playing with an RF emitter in the VHF band, Harry Mudd hasn't stopped by and spilled the beans, no one's even accidentally done anything to give the game away.

Sorry, I'm just not buying that.

Comment: Bre Petis (Score 3, Interesting) 128

Local Motors is an investment of Bre Petis, of Makerbot fame, as noted on his web page.

I don't know if it is deliberate viral marketing strategy of his or just good investment instinct, but I have noticed that products which make headlines on tech sites trace back to his investments. Another example is the new LIDAR offered at SparkFun from PulsedLight, which, according to this YouTube video, is linked to DragonInnovation.com, another Petis investment.

Comment: Re: Umm, no. (Score 1) 187

Please re-read the comment. I was not referring to any photo. I was referring to a diorama. As in, a 3D replica of the moon landing. It is definitely there. Go in the front door of the Nehru planetarium into that main room where they have multiple exhibits, and the loudspeakers call everyone to go from place to place. In the back right of that room there is a diorama of the moon landing, and they stuck one of those toothpick flags in there next to the astronaut. And it's an Indian flag, not an American flag. Obviously you didn't look close enough.

Comment: Bigger issues than privacy killed glass. (Score 1) 324

by Crazy Taco (#48872371) Attached to: What Will Google Glass 2.0 Need To Actually Succeed?

The hardest problem I've seen people have with Google Glass is how obvious it is you are wearing the glasses. People in public assume you are recording them and it bothers them.

Actually, I don't think that's the hardest problem. Our innovation team at work brought in a pair of Google glasses and let us try them out. Frankly, they are exceedingly underwhelming. The screen is really small, but worse, the resolution seems low and the colors aren't very great, so it's actually really hard to read. And it's not really like a HUD or anything like that. You have to really take your attention away from everything else to read the screen, so in that respect it's not very immersive and it feels like you are doing two things at once: interacting with the real world or interacting with glass (just like how you can either look at the world or look at your smartphone). The real potential would be if you could walk around and have immersive information show up around products, etc, without you having to take your eyes completely off them.

And another design problem with them is that they get really hot. Like uncomfortably hot when you touch them, like those old laptops always were when you set them on your lap.

So to me, privacy concerns matter, but I don't think the average citizen thinks about privacy all that much. I think to them, as well as myself, the big issue is an underwhelming design, combined with an exorbitant price ($1500) and really no practical application for it yet. It doesn't mean it won't ever succeed, of course. I just read an article reminding people that cars were around about 40 years before they became actually decent, and PDAs have been around since the 80s but only really took off when the smartphone craze kicked off. Someday, we may look back on this as the first step towards a technology that everyone has, but for now, they really aren't that great and there are many reasons they failed.

Comment: Re:About 7-8 years ago? (Score 1) 302

by Crazy Taco (#48871607) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Has the Time Passed For Coding Website from Scratch?
One other thought... while the time for coding animations, events, etc for a front end UI without a framework *may* have passed, doing coding for webpages from scratch probably does still exist in some large, complex web applications, especially if you are working on server side processing code of some sort (though I would still expect you would use some kind of framework, like the .Net framework or PHP). But obviously something like Amazon.com would require armies of developers writing a lot of code from scratch. But that isn't what you run into anymore on your typical small to medium websites. So I guess it depends where you work and what you work on.

Comment: About 7-8 years ago? (Score 4, Interesting) 302

by Crazy Taco (#48871567) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Has the Time Passed For Coding Website from Scratch?
Yeah, the time for coding them from scratch probably passed about 7-8 years ago. Can you still code them from scratch today? Yes, technically you can, but at most employers you would be way to slow on the productivity side. As a web developer and web hosting guy for a large Fortune 500 company, I can tell you that marketers expect to be able to get a very nice site with lots of bells and whistles up within just a few days anymore, with all kinds of custom features that allow them to edit the page without a developer. To meet that kind of demand, you can't code from scratch. You really need to use a CMS tool to handle the editing/admin functionality, and then some sort of RAD framework, whether it be .Net MVC, JQuery, AngularJS, etc (or multiple of these frameworks) to quickly set up the rest of your custom functionality. Otherwise they'll just go to someone else who can do it faster so that they can meet their ever shrinking time to market campaign goals. This, by the way, is one of the reasons I'm no longer a developer. I personally enjoyed the nitty gritty of coding from scratch, and got bored quickly from just doing "information plumbing", where you pull from one or two databases, get to do a tiny bit of code but mostly the framework does everything interesting. I know lots of people prefer that because they don't want to deal with low level stuff, but that's not my bag.

Comment: Re: Umm, no. (Score 4, Interesting) 187

I was in Mumbai just over a year ago and went to the Nehru planetarium. They had a diorama there of the first moon landing. Everything looked perfect, from the Apollo spacecraft to the little astronaut in a space suit standing on the Lunar surface. There was one blatant problem though... they replaced the American flag with the Indian flag! My boss (also American) and I had a good time laughing about that.

Comment: Re:obamas fault (Score -1) 490

by SplashMyBandit (#48778291) Attached to: In Paris, Terrorists Kill 2 More, Take At Least 7 Hostages

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

This is anti-First Amendment, is it not? Free Speech *requires* the ability to 'slander' the superstitions of any group - Mohammed being no exception. The Supreme Court has ruled on this again and again and again. Obama is not only wrong, he is a danger to Free Speech (which is probably why he let Hillary Clinton push the disgustingly pro-Sharia UN HRC 16/18 criminalizing criticism of Islam for the citizens of all UN signatory states - unbelievable that a sitting US Secretary of State would do this - but hey, she is a disciple of the Marxist Saul Alinsky so not unexpected).

Are you one of those who believe Charlie Hebdo "deserved what they got" because they "had it coming" ? this is Obama's position in the speech you give. Do you think that is moral? or serves the causes of Free Speech and Liberty?

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.” -- George Orwell

Which side do you think President Obama and his administration are on? which side are you on?

"Plastic gun. Ingenious. More coffee, please." -- The Phantom comics