Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:That's what Nokia, Moto, and Microsoft said (Score 1) 535

And this implies (for me) that Apple is likely NOT going to use traditional car building techniques which involves building a complete factory (Tela like).
Instead I think they will use cheaper low volume techniques (3D printing??) and only ramp them up if demand is high.

I saw a video recently of a 3D printing car manufacturing technique where a car chassis was build entirely with 3D printed parts. The body pannels do not have to be from steel, making them much cheaper to produce. And then there is still the drive train (which is at the hart of the research that Apple has to do anyway)

Comment Re:Of course the Air Force didn't adopt it (Score 2) 320

I don't understand your logic. A drone is at most a bomb truck and a observation platform. Not really suited for the type of missions of the A10: working closely with people on the ground, often within visual range responding quickly and with very high precision.

Would you like a drone to drop a precision laser guided bomb from 10 000 ft on a target that's less than 1 km from where you're standing?? Or would you rather have an A10 flying over low and slow and take out the target with it's gun?

Logically the F-35 should be the one that is most likely to be replaced by a drone. Since it's manouverability is very low and all supporters of the plane describe it as a 'communication platform' and 'not intended for close combat'. That's something that a drone could easily do.

Comment Re:I may have missed it but (Score 1) 320

Nope. Navy has aircraft carriers with catapults and arrest kables. They don't need STOVL. Marine core does to replace their version of the Harrier. This is currently only in use by the marine core meaning that the Navy currently has no STOVL capabililty.

Comment Re:Works both ways (Score 1) 737

> How does any of this behavior differ in any way from any other organized crime ring?

It's not a crime to be wrong.

It's not about being wrong. The scientific communitiy is perfectly clear about global warming. It's about clouding the matter on purpose to protect you interests.

Think about cigarettes: in the 90's everyone 'knew' that they were harmfull. Still, large warnings about the dangers of smoking were systematically blocked since the tobacco industry said 'there is no proof'. They were conviced because they too clouded the public option on purpose by spreading false information on the scientific consensus.
And not because they were wrong (their own investigation had shown years before exactly what the dangers were - just like the Exxon study in a recent /. article showed that the Oil companies are too well aware of the consequences).

Comment Wrong strategy? Not really (Score 1) 324

Just like anybody else (I think) I am often amazed at how much money people are spending (again and again) on apple devices and particularly iPhones. And just like anybody else I often wonder how long this can go on.
So, I'm convinced that somewhere in the future apple will either make some huge mistake or, alternatively, find their formula working less and less well for them because (like any market leader is bound to do) they keep on hammering on the same nail, not realizing the world has changed meanwhile.

That being said: I don't think this is the big stragegic mistake, nor do I think it is the start of their downfall...

Comment Re:oops (Score 1) 440

I just looked at the wikipedia article about the Macintosh link and it confirms what I remember from a documentary about the dawn of personal computer: the apple Macintosh was selling well (280 000 in the first year, outselling all other computers). It's just that Steve Jobs' expectations were so much higher still. And he had transferred these expectetions onto the potential buyers (business people) who were, initially, underwhelmed.

That Woz preferred the Lisa is no big misery. The Lisa was technically superior. Just unsellable. And if Jobs had continued on the Lisa project he would have left Woz alone on the Macintosh. As it was Jobs (in his typically 'I'm god' style) simply took his project over while he was away.

Comment Re:Any possibility that sunscreen causes cancer? (Score 1) 210

CFC's and the ozone layer are not so much of a problem any more. They replaced CFC's as the main liquid for refrigiragion and other heat transfer systems. And that was effective.
I think that (just my personal oppinion):
a) There may not have been that much less cancers in the past. Just not as well recorded.
b) Risk of cancer get really high if you get burned regularly (especially at young ages). There I think that people who live outside all year have less risk of getting burned than us living and working inside all day and then, during hollidays, go lying in the sun.
c)We live longer ==> more chance of getting cancer.

Comment Re:It takes two... (Score 1) 440

This discussion reminds me of a metal box for Corn Flakes I once got for my kids. It gave on the side an account of how Kellogg's Corn Flakes (TM - duh) came into being. They were invented by Harvey Kellogg a stomatologist, who found that his patience didn't just profit from them but actually liked them. Like every day.
Enter his brother William. Het took care of the 'productizing'. And guess who's signature is on every box "to distinguish the original"? W. K. Kellogg. The manager. The only thing he did was sell it. And I'm sure that if you would look up who got fithily rich out of the Kellogg company it will not be our good doctor.

So, I'm sure that Woz did the design of the original Apple I and II completely by himself...

Neutrinos are into physicists.