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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:The faster data moves (Score 1) 75

by Methlin (#45146865) Attached to: Ethernet's 400-Gigabit Challenge Is a Good Problem To Have
Shhh, don't tell anyone, but a T1 is just two (or one, depending on span type) DSL circuits and has all the same impairments and limitations as the first two-wire residential DSL standard; which based itself off of two-wire T1 spans. The difference of course is repeaters for T1s are common place every 3000-5000ft. They exist for xDSL as well but are far more expensive and only ever seen in rural areas.

Comment: Re:Just what I needed ... (Score 1) 336

by Methlin (#32765542) Attached to: HDBaseT Supporters Hope To Kiss HDMI Goodbye

How long until the first support call because some tool tries a regular network (or hell, even phone...) cable?

It's supposed to work with normal Cat-5e/6 network cable. However the likelihood of Joe Sixpack plugging their HDBaseT into the ethernet port of their computer/switch/modem and frying it with the 100W power going over it is pretty high.

Comment: Re:-1 False Assumption (Score 1) 976

by Methlin (#31824706) Attached to: Red-Light Camera Ticket Revenue and Short Yellows

If you are in the intersection when the light is red the you have run the light. It's really very simple!

There's two rules, and they vary depending on where you live. There's Permissive Yellow, where you're legal if you entered the intersection before the light changed to red, and then there's Restrictive Yellow where you're considered to have run the red light if it changes to red while you're still in the intersection. In the US most, but not all, states are Permissive Yellow.

Comment: Re:Brakes! (Score 1) 690

by Methlin (#31350872) Attached to: $1M Prize For Finding Cause of Unintended Acceleration

they are talking about brakes strong enough to hold the car in place if you have your feet planted on both the accelerator AND the brake at the same time.

Yes. And I'm saying that any car that can't do this is not roadworthy and needs to see a mechanic immediately. Brake systems of basically any modern car are strong enough to do that if properly maintained. Sure, it'll possibly kill the engine and the transmission, but the car won't move.

Only because the traction control system of a car with enough power to break traction on acceleration is preventing it from doing so. '70's muscle cars could overcome their rear brakes just fine, and yet when you stomped on the brakes they'd lock up those same rears just fine too. The modern equivalents can do it too if you turn off/disable the traction control.

Comment: Re:Brakes! (Score 2, Informative) 690

by Methlin (#31350804) Attached to: $1M Prize For Finding Cause of Unintended Acceleration

Uhhhh... I believe you fail at basic physics. If you can plonk both feet on the pedals and not accelerate, then the breaks can excerpt more force than the engine can (otherwise you'd be accelerating). Given that force equals mass times acceleration, breaks that can excerpt more force than your accelerator will obviously decelerate you faster than your accelerator will accelerate you.

Physics fail yourself. You're forgetting that acceleration is traction and drag limited, while deceleration is traction limited with drag helping you slow down. There's plenty of cars that in the absence of traction control will quite happily spin the drive wheels and produce lots of smoke when you press the gas. There's also plenty of cars (pretty much all) that in the absence of ABS will quite happily lock up the wheels while moving and produce lots of smoke when you press the brakes. The force required to lock up the wheels isn't necessarily more than the engine can produce, it is however all the force required to stop the car if the engine wasn't outputting maximum power.

Comment: Re:"The" cause (Score 1) 690

by Methlin (#31350148) Attached to: $1M Prize For Finding Cause of Unintended Acceleration

The brake booster for power brakes has a check valve to keep existing vacuum within the booster even if the engine's wide open or off. There should be enough vacuum to apply the brakes two or three times before the vacuum runs out. Try getting in your car and (without starting the engine) apply the brakes a few times. You should feel them get "hard" after a few times when the vacuum assist is depleted.

And even after that they will still work, you're just now hydraulically linked from pedal to brake pistons.

Comment: Re:Right answer (Score 1) 690

by Methlin (#31350046) Attached to: $1M Prize For Finding Cause of Unintended Acceleration

Turning off the engine I can understand - you lose your power steering and brakes, but neutral is an important safety feature. Are there really cars out there you can't put into neutral???

Except that steering and brakes don't stop working when the engine is off, however you do not have hydraulic boosts to either and no ABS. So yeah, you have to press harder on the pedal and it takes more force to steer, but both still work and shouldn't be a reason for not allowing you to turn off the engine.

Comment: Re:Me thinks (Score 1) 690

by Methlin (#31349912) Attached to: $1M Prize For Finding Cause of Unintended Acceleration

The problem isn't anything to do with the breaks not being powerful enough. The issue is that they don't engage at all.

There seems to be a problem with the drive-by-wire computer system where it forces the accelerator on full and stops accepting other input, including the breaks. Pressing the pedal does nothing. It appears you cannot do any of the other obvious things like changing gear to neutral* or turning the engine off.

*Presumably only in automatic cars, manual ones mostly still use mechanical gear shifts.

I'm fairly certain, that in the US at least, that safety regulations require that brake pedal->brakes and steering wheel->wheels must still work even if the engine is turned off and there are no electrics working either.


Duke Nukem 3D Ported To Nokia N900 95

Posted by Soulskill
from the all-outta-gum dept.
andylim writes "It looks as if Duke Nukem isn't completely 'nuked' after all. Someone has ported the 90s classic on to a Nokia N900. As you'll see in the video, you control Duke using the Qwerty keypad and shoot using the touchscreen. I'm wondering how long it will take for this to get on other mobile platforms." In other Duke news, reader Jupix points out that 3D Realms' CEO Scott Miller recently said, "There are numerous other Duke games in various stages of development, several due out this year. We are definitely looking to bring Duke into casual gaming spaces, plus there are other major Duke games in production."

Comment: Re:Fad. (Score 1) 405

by Methlin (#30356192) Attached to: Not All iPods — Vinyl and Turntables Gain Sales

96khz is major overkill. Find out for yourself, get a tone generator and I can almost guarantee you won't be able to hear 32khz, much less 96. The only reason I know this is because I've done it myself, curious about the whole 32/96 audio thing. Even with a brand new high quality record and a fully capable recording chain I've never seen frequencies much higher than 32khz (even though practically nobody could hear it anyway), in fact they often have considerably worse frequency response than digital audio. By extension, dvd-audio and SACD are a scam (as with most audiophile garbage).

That would be true if you never intended to do anything with the recording other than play it back at exactly the same rate it was recorded. Is it better to have the sampled data at the point you're resampling, or to guess what might have been there from interpolation?

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."