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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Mars is impossible (Score 1) 310

Go back and read 'Red Mars'. Before he goes all political KSR describes a pretty rational plan to get to Mars. For that matter, so does Andy Weir in 'The Martian'. It just takes money. Lots and lots of money.

Something that NASA never manages to get. Kinda pointless coming up with detailed plans when you know you won't get funding for it. Might as well just make a movie....

Comment Re:Scale the other way... (Score 1) 182

Why not trying millions of 2-meter tall mini-turbines? Sure, wind speed at ground level isn't great, but it exists, multiply by millions... And ruin the scenery less, easier to maintain? What happens when a giant turbine breaks?

You want to maintain millions of small, electrical things in the middle of the ocean? Either you are looking to start an off shore maintenance company or you're just bat shit insane.

Comment Re:Boat-Bomb Bait (Score 1) 182

Actually, it would be pretty easy to defend these things. Sonar installations surrounding the submerged parts, a radar on top. Torpedoes on the bottom, air to air on the top.

But, moving back to reality, this sort of thing doesn't seem to happen. There are hundreds of very expensive platforms scattered all around the world just chock full of things that don't do well with explosives (or, depending on your point of view, work just fine with them). We don't see too many terrorist attacks on oil platforms.

To difficult, to far away, not enough people to make a splash about. If the 'terrorists' were really serious, they would blow up a few security lines in a major airport. There is too much low hanging fruit to worry about off shore platforms.

Comment Re:HDMI=mostly disadvantages (Score 5, Informative) 406

HDMI sucks:

HDMI is a horrid format; it was badly thought out and badly designed, and the failures of its design are so apparent that they could have been addressed and resolved with very little fuss. Why they weren't, exactly, is really anyone's guess, but the key has to be that the standard was not intended to provide a benefit to the consumer, but to such content providers as movie studios and the like. It would have been in the consumer's best interests to develop a standard that was robust and reliable over distance, that could be switched, amplified, and distributed economically, and that connects securely to devices; but the consumer's interests were, sadly, not really a priority for the developers of the HDMI standard. ... HDMI has presented a few problems. Unlike analog component video, the signal is not robust over distance because it was designed to run balanced when it should have been run unbalanced (SDI, the commercial digital video standard, can be run hundreds of feet over a single coax without any performance issues); the HDMI cable is a complicated rat's-nest arrangement involving nineteen conductors; switches, repeaters and distribution amplifiers for use with HDMI cable, by virtue of this complicated scheme, are made unnecessarily complicated and troublesome; and the HDMI cable plug is prone to falling out of the jack with the slightest tug. On the plus side, in the great majority of simple installations,

Slashdot Top Deals

The fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated from the order of space and time. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge