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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Does This Make Sense? (Score 1) 318

by PraiseBob (#49642091) Attached to: Tesla To Unveil Its $35,000 Model 3 In March 2016
Maybe because its so obvious to everyone else. Since we are talking about cars, lets use a computer analogy- is it easier to update and maintain a software application on a single very large server that serves a lot of people? Or is it easier to update and maintain that same application on 100,000 different computers? If you do decide your application needs an update (or tightening of emissions in this context), you only have to modify one source, rather than 100,000.

Comment: Re:Does This Make Sense? (Score 4, Insightful) 318

by PraiseBob (#49640325) Attached to: Tesla To Unveil Its $35,000 Model 3 In March 2016
100% of gasoline powered cars rely on fossil fuels
~66% of electricity in the us is generated using fossil fuels, 39% is from coal

In some sense we are trading the smoke-plumes around, but keep in mind it is vastly more efficient to regulate and control the pollution out of one stack than one million different little stacks.

Comment: Re:Good thing too! (Score 4, Insightful) 225

by PraiseBob (#49639821) Attached to: NFL Releases Deflategate Report
This only means they didn't need to cheat to win that specific game. There is a preponderance of evidence that they were both knowingly and intentionally breaking the rules. This is called cheating to most people who aren't from the New England area. There is an established pattern of cheating through the entire season, which throws into question their "championship".

Comment: Re:A useful link for all of ya ... (Score 1) 1097

by PraiseBob (#49614131) Attached to: Two Gunman Killed Outside "Draw the Prophet" Event In Texas
So do you think whipping people into a violent frenzy, where attempted murder is the expected outcome and defence with deadly force is a necessity, is a reasonable way to make a persuasive argument?

There is also the "fighting words" legal doctrine:
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

This event wasn't about showing different artwork, some of which just happened to offend. This event was intended to insult a religion while wearing a mantle of "free speech", and its not unreasonable to assume that they had a specific goal of inciting a breach of the peace. Not everything has one side right and the other side wrong, sometimes both parties are wrong.

Comment: Re:Aspartame not harmful? (Score 1) 630

by PraiseBob (#49561927) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame
Same here. 1 can of aspartame based diet soda and like clockwork I get a blinding headache which prevents me from doing just about anything.

Funny how the aspartame lobby talks about safe it is, and how only .0001% of people have side effects, but within an hour of the story being posted there are many multiple anecdotes about how this product causes agonizing pain. It is still a small percentage of people, but it is more than the FDA claims.

Comment: Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score 5, Insightful) 616

by PraiseBob (#49532365) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California
And what happens when we actually prove that Autism disorder is caused by bad vaccines?

Did you pay any attention to the news this week? The study that took years and years, involving almost 100,000 kids, conclusively showing that there is no link? Even if there is a link, its statistically so tiny as to be irrelevant.

And yes, the state can and does take away children from parents if the state doesn't like how they are being raised. It happens daily. Parenthood isn't some right that supercedes other individuals safety.

The fact is, FORCING vaccines doesn't protect ANYONE from ANYTHING.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point, since I didn't catch polio, or measles, or a wide variety of other diseases, and that is almost entirely due to the state forcing vaccinations on other people.

In fact, the Measles outbreak at Disneyland had almost nothing to do with the no-vaccine advocates

So you are saying there is no connection between a low vaccination rate, and outbreaks of disease? You can make that claim, but the CDC, the AMA, and most reputable doctors, strongly disagree with that notion. Not just in general, but in this specific outbreak where a study found that the low vaccination rate was responsible.

Comment: Call a spade a spade (Score 0) 191

There is really only one legitimate broad category that would require shutting off cell service: Mass uprising, revolutionary activity, organized protests, and riots. Think of the Ferguson riots, but slightly more extreme, with organized looting and organized attacks against government installations. When tempers flare, just a few hotheads on each side could escalate the situation to full-scale combat. We've seen several examples in Egypt, Turkey, & Syria, along with other countries affected by the Arab spring uprisings. I am absolutely certain the govt had backup plans to shut down cell service in Ferguson if rioting got out of hand and became a broader threat.

The government has a compelling reason to plan for these scenarios where several dozen or perhaps even hundreds of cells of motivated actors coordinate assaults. Do you remember last year when dozens of militia groups decided to converge and "protect the southern border", and brought a shit-ton of assault rifles with them? What if something outrageous happened- imagine if there was a false report of an attack on one of the militia group from the Mexican army. Or hell, imagine a few mexican soldiers did have a shooting confrontation with some of those militia members? The call to arms would be broadcast very quickly via cell phone among the groups there, and that kind of crowd panic could easily turn nasty. Backup could be called from miles away. Scouting missions could be sent against a nominally hostile army and those scouts can communicate back with the main force. If those militias were thrown into a combat situation, what exactly do you think would happen if the govt tried to step in and disarm them? One very real alternative that can save lives and slow down further escalation is to shut down communication.

These are the scenarios the govt is planning against, where thousands of its own citizens might rampage against some percieved threat. These aren't ridiculous what-if scenarios, but real events that happened within the past 12 months, that very easily could have spun into chaos.

Comment: Re:Supply side tomfoolery (Score 1) 477

If you were correct, then there would be no taxis. But there are a lot, and theres a lot of new competition in the sector as the internet tightens the margins. There is always the same basic need: lower cost. I drive my car for maybe an hour a day on average. But I pay for it 24 hours a day. Taxis are so much more convenient, but cost a lot because of the human driver.

Comment: Re:The name is not the problem (Score 1) 317

by PraiseBob (#49279089) Attached to: Microsoft Is Killing Off the Internet Explorer Brand
Every browser uses javascript. Mozilla allows people to use plugins, some of which make it much easier to manage js. But bad javascript on a website, can only make that website suck. It's the ActiveX controls built into IE with the idea of breaking web compatibility and getting browser lock-in, along with Browser Helper Objects, which makes the whole browser suck. BHO's are responsible for those million toolbars.

Using IE makes you more vulnerable to malware, because of poor design. There is no fix. IE = Malware in the eyes of techies. No matter what version number they put out, with whatever security enhancements, they have to escape that branding.

Comment: Re:Can Lenovo Be Sued? (Score 1) 144

Small claims court- You don't need to pay a lawyer, you can just present your side of the story to a judge or jury
Worst case scenario, you lose half a day and get nothing, and spend ~$100 on court fees.
But there is a chance, especially with a jury, that you will get reimbursed the laptops cost, and either way Lenovo will spend thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Computer Science is the only discipline in which we view adding a new wing to a building as being maintenance -- Jim Horning