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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Various whatsits (Score 5, Interesting) 266 266

I carry around a pipe caliper that I designed and 3D printed. A scissor-looking device that tells you the size of a pipe (up to 4") based on outside diameter. Useful on the job.

I designed and printed a custom flashlight holder for those cheap LED flashlights.

Custom replacement handle for a triangular file

Set of custom drawer knobs.

Custom hard drive mounting bracket.

Custom battery holder.

Custom shelf bracket.

~Three dozen clothespins.

3-axis tilt camera stand that mounts on top of a tripod. (replaces one that broke).

Custom 80:1 worm gear reduction for a machine I was working on, as well as a few spur gears and light-duty V-belt pulleys for same machine. Custom thrust bearing and ball bearing holders.

A full set of Meta-Chess pieces.

A custom tool for aligning V-belt pulleys using a 3V line laser module and magnetic base.

Currently in progress is a mostly 3D printed racing wheel controller for my PC, which uses the guts from a dual analog game controller. The controller is unusable because the silicone pads for the buttons cracked, but the electronics are still good and with 4x analog axes I can get steering and three pedals plus 16 digital buttons. My hangup is I can't get the "feel" of the buttons right...

If I ever get off my ass and finish building the electric furnace I've been working on, and manage to melt some aluminum with it, I fully intend to try lost-PLA casting some aluminum parts. That's be awesome...
=Smidge=

Comment: Re:Still too expensive (Score 1) 247 247

By this logic, nobody would buy a gasoline gar that's over $10K either... yet there aren't many new cars you can buy for $10K.

It's almost like there's more than just sticker price that is of interest to buyers. Things like fit and finish, styling, performance, and maybe even brand.

This is what Tesla realized from the start: It's very hard to make an electric car that's cheap but attractive, and it's a lot easier to make a car more attractive than it is to make it less expensive. So, if you're going to make a $60K+ electric car, make sure it looks, feels and drives like a $60K+ car.
=Smidge=

Comment: Re:Incineration (Score 1) 371 371

The data shows that growth has increased despite harvesting has increased or remained virtually the same over the past ~60 years. The overall volume of tree stocks has VERY CLEARLY been growing for both soft and hard woods.

And you still need to substantiate your claim that we'd need to sacrifice food production to grow enough paper.
=Smidge=

Comment: Re:Not surprising... (Score 5, Informative) 181 181

The FCC has removed incentives for monopolistic ISPs to increase backbone network capacity since they are not allowed to derive any additional revenue to offset the cost of those investments...

They were NEVER going to do that, ever, until it became absolutely necessary and/or someone else paid for it.

For starters, ISPs do not have anything to do with the backbones - those are owned and operated by other companies that do not sell connections to the end user. The backbone is not the problem - the ISPs which control the "last mile" are.

And there's plenty of bandwidth for the most part. All evidence suggests that the plan was never to increase bandwidth and charge extra for better service - the plan was to throttle and charge extra for normal service.

This is self evident in the fact that the backbone is fine, but traffic is what's being artificially throttled. It's exactly what they were doing and the FCC regulations were put in place to stop it and preserve the internet how it was, not change it.

There's no such thing as a free market when there is a monopoly. Network Neutrality prevents monopolies from harming competition and actually *preserves* what little free market exists on the internet.
=Smidge=

Comment: Re:Incineration (Score 1) 371 371

Harvesting the cellulose source is so destructive to the growth matrix that yields per time and yields per acre have been steadily decreasing for the last 500 years

What on earth are you talking about? Stock growth (trees that can be harvested) per acre have been growing for decades.

Further, to grow sufficient volume to supply current paper needs would require a serious imposition on food growing lands

Show your work.
=Smidge=

Comment: Re: Knowing when not to (Score 2) 343 343

I'm like that. I actually wouldn't mind rewriting most of the stuff I've written, but it all works and I can understand what things I wrote 10 years ago are supposed to be doing. But like the GP, even while I'm writing I often feel like I could have done it a better way - not the nitty gritty coding, but the approach I took to begin with. I think the overall sentiment is there's always room for improvement, even if the code is good and works, but you can't keep changing or you won't finish (and I rarely get a chance at version 2 where I work).

Comment: Re:Incineration (Score 4, Interesting) 371 371

More specifically, burn paper but not the plastic.

Paper is a renewable resource, and it doesn't make as much sense financially or environmentally to recycle it. It's also the major constituent of landfills. Fix up the supply side of the paper industry - switch from wood pulp to some other, easier to grow feedstock (switchgrass, hemp, etc...) - and close the carbon cycle by burning it. You recover the energy and reduce the volume of the remaining waste.

Plastics are harder to justify burning, IMHO. The materials needed aren't entirely renewable and they more often contain additives that don't play nice when incinerated.
=Smidge=

Comment: Re:political speech (Score 1) 233 233

People accuse public figures of being Nazis all the time.

Are you referring to fascist dictator "nazi" or literal badge-wearing capital-N Nazi? There's a difference. I'd argue that one is a general coarse criticism while the other is a very specific accusation that might pass judicial muster as defamatory.

One of the defenses in a libel case like that would be the "political hyperbole" defense, that nobody took it seriously.

That's the real crux here. Comments accusing Obama of being socialist/communist/Nazi (fascist or literal) generally are not taken seriously, since anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see these people don't even know what those words mean.

But that does not, IMHO, constitute "political speech." I don't approve of people suing over hurt feelings either, but those kinds of comments don't really deserve 1st amendment protection.
=Smidge=

Comment: Re:political speech (Score 1) 233 233

Obviously anybody under a certain age was born after the Nazis and therefore it's actually an accusation that they are a ruthless authoritarian rather than what it might seem on its face to those without a sense of humour.

I think there's room to make a distinction between general insult "nazi" aka fascist as you describe, and actual, literal White supremacist anti-jew swastika-wearing "Hitler did nothing wrong" capital-N Nazi. Those people do exist, you know...
=Smidge=

Comment: Re:political speech (Score 4, Insightful) 233 233

Defamation, along with obscenity and inciting panic or violence, have never been free speech. Slander and libel are civil crimes that you can be sued for in court, and it's been that way since day one. To facilitate enforcement of defamation laws, the court has decided it's acceptable to try and de-anonymize the poster in question.

Just because the words are about a political candidate, does not make it political speech. This case is not the same as speaking unpopular political views and opinions - that WOULD be protected speech. It's the difference between supporting Nazi idealism (free speech) and accusing someone of being a Nazi (not free speech).
=Smidge=

Comment: Re: Whats wrong with US society (Score 1) 609 609

Well, you're off by at least an order of magnitude, and likely a lot more. If you look at official police misconduct numbers for example here, you'll see that something around 1% of police officers are involved in serious complaints each year.

...

And keep in mind these are reported official cases of misconduct. Recent analyses have shown that lots of questionable actions taken by police while on duty are not prosecuted or investigated thoroughly

You're misusing the statistics and twisting them to fit your preconceived notions of how terrible police are. Around 1% get complaints, but that doesn't say how many are valid. The second paragraph quoted doesn't change that... in fact, it adds nothing to it... 10% could get complaints, it doesn't make 10% guilty of wrong doing.

As far as not talking to police, you're again missing context... if you're under arrest, then don't talk to police. Otherwise you're likely just being an asshole and obstructing justice. If you say something incriminating before being read your Miranda rights, it's inadmissible in court... and of course, you can only say something incriminating if you've actually done something wrong. If you haven't done anything wrong, there's no reason not to talk to police.

Comment: Re:The downside is taxpayers... (Score 1) 283 283

Right... they provide a kiosk for people to submit applications. So I don't see the problem. BTW, you're wrong about most of those places - since most of them are franchises, they are owned by a local owner; I don't even frequent fast food places that often, but have seen plenty of people asking for, and getting, paper applications. I'm not saying people don't need help, I'm saying internet is NOT a necessity - but we're not even talking about internet access, TFA is talking about BROADBAND.

Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol

Working...