Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Good use. (Score 4, Interesting) 71

The main question is if the plant is still safe. It hasn't been used in years. Is it still in good maintenance? Was the design meant to be idled for years? What are the risks of restarting that particular design of reactor after all those years? Is the land there safe for workers of the plant after reactor 2's accident all those years ago? And what plans are in place to prevent what happened at reactor 2 from happening at reactor 1?

I actually don't know the answer to any of those questions. But I hope experts are actively asking those.

Comment Re: It a guidebook... (Score 1) 242

Really isn't. I haven't seen cursive anywhere but on documents in a museum at any point in my life. That includes signatures, which are more likely to be a squiggle than anything resembling actual cursive. There is zero point to mandatory instruction on it anymore (if there ever was- the idea that it was a faster way of writing is backed by 0 proof. And even if it was, the ease of reading script more than cancels out those speed gains).

Comment Re:Possibly valid (Score 5, Informative) 53

Not just possibly, but absolutely valid. This is exactly the kind of thing trademarks exist to prevent. They aren't claiming the word "automatic", they're claiming that naming a framework that's meant to work with their product (WordPress) a name that differs from their own by only 1 letter, particularly such a non-obvious difference (many people won't notice the existence of an extra 't') is meant to cause confusion an think it's an official part of their offerings. Because it is. If the other company doesn't change the name they will be destroyed in court. And frankly they'll deserve it. Whoever chose that name was either a total idiot with no concept of the law, or a scammer who meant to prey on Autmattic's good name.

Comment Re:My takes on this presentation (Score 1) 6

The idea is that it's always on your face and hands free, and due to the location of the display you don't need to look down- it overlays your normal field of vision with additional information (that's the entire point of AR). But yes, other than overlaying your actual field of vision there's nothing it could do that a phone couldn't.

Comment Re:My takes on this presentation (Score 1) 6

I'm more curious how the display works. I had Google Goggles. The display was nearly impossible to see and gave me a headache going crosseyed trying. If the hardware can overlay well, and be easy to see, someone will write the software for it eventually. If it can't, then no amount of software will work.

Really the glasses itself should be dumb. Put all the smarts in a smartphone app with a plugin architecture. Have it voice controlled where you say a keyword then parse your next sentence for a command. Send the video to the phone for processing via BT, and let the app do whatever it needs to do, and individual plugins send overlays up. That's enough to get a lot of useful stuff out of it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?

Working...