Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:FUD (Score 1) 224

Google isn't making a car, iirc they've said they're going to license the technology. On the other hand Apple does seem to be seriously interested in make its own cars and is hiring people. The information isn't that interesting either, the most likely use would be applications to help people, but invariably car makers feel that the vehicles are appliances and that they should be able to charge customers for information about their own vehicle.

The problem with rumors is that the conclusions that come out of them are not always the best. The last time I heard that Apple was releasing an electric car, it was because Apple engineers met with Elon Musk about something. Which sounds plausible until you think about whether Elon Musk would help Apple compete with him. Then Apple announced CarPlay. Now the rumors again are that Apple is releasing an electric car. This time, they have "hundreds" of people working on a car according to other rumors. My guess: Apple is working on a car that does street mapping like Google has had for years.

Comment Re:Why do they need ANY info? (Score 1) 224

Ok, why do they even need to know if the car is in MOTION at all just to play music??

Satellite navigation functionality is part of CarPlay (and I assume Google's version as well). Off the top of my head, if I were a designer, then the pinging the car's GPS location should occur more frequently if the car is moving and less frequently if the car is stationary.

Comment Re:As a Canadian (Score 3, Informative) 49

Like much of science, discoveries are based on previous work. Starting in the 1960s physicists encountered the solar neutrino problem. Ray Davis in the Homestake Experiment was trying to detect solar neutrinos but was only getting 1/3 of the amount he expected. But he could repeatedly get the same results. Either he was wrong or the Standard Model was wrong. In the 1980s, Masatoshi Koshiba confirmed Davis' results using a different technique with the Kamiokande II. For some reason there were far fewer solar neutrinos than predicted by the Standard Model.

In 1998, Takaaki Kajita's work at Kamiokande's successor, Super Kamiokande, gave hints at what may be causing the discrepancy. While the results were not conclusive and dealt with muon neutrinos, it suggested that the amount of neutrinos was in agreement with the Standard Model but that they were oscillating or changing into different flavors which previous experiments were not set up to detect. At the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in 1999, Arthur MacDonald and his team were able to confirm that solar neutrinos oscillate.

For their work, all four men have now received the Nobel Prize because they showed that the Standard Model of physics was wrong about something fundamental. Initial explanations about the discrepancy suggested that physicists were wrong about how the sun (and stellar fusion) works. The physicists were correct; however, they were wrong about the nature of neutrinos. Originally it was thought that neutrinos have no mass but by oscillating, neutrinos must have some mass even it is very, very small.

Submission HDMI announces premium certification program for HDMI 2.0->

UnknowingFool writes: HDMI® Licensing LLC announced the new Premium HDMI Cable Certification Program which will certify whether cables can meet the 2.0 specification. While today's HDMI 1.4 cables can handle 4K (4096 x 2160) video, it is at 24Hz or 30Hz for the UltraHD (3840×2160) resolution. HDMI 2.0 cables should be able to handle 4K at 60Hz with 18 Gbit/s throughput and support for HDR video. HDMI 1.4 can handle 10.2 Gbit/s. No word on how many first-born children Monster will charge for 2.0 cables.
Link to Original Source

Comment Re: ROT13 in the WW-II era.. (Score 1) 66

Yes and no. The Poles broke the commercial version of Enigma as these machines had been sold to businesses like banks that needed to secure their communications. This version had only 3 rotors. By the time Germany invaded Poland, they had started using a modified form which used 3 out of 5 rotors and a plugboard for the Luftwaffe and Army versions. The Naval version used 3 out 8 rotors and a plugboard and later in the war added a 4 rotor. These modifications greatly increased the encryption and while the Polish work was helpful, the daily and message settings for the machine was the main puzzle that the British had to solve.

I seem to remember that in the movie, Turing based the "bombe" after the Polish design which could break the commercial version and that it was the Poles that smuggled out a machine to the Allies. Both of these are true.

Comment Re:Samsung != Apple (Score 1) 133

No he didn't and you missed the point. I questioned whether or not his example is actually a fabrication. As for your example, it is the only case that that Apple has done whereas many, many Samsung models barely are updated as it is also up to the carrier. In relevance to this story some US carriers have not updated S4. I do however find it curious that someone so anti-Apple would ever purchase an iPhone.

Comment Re:Samsung != Apple (Score 1) 133

I had a 3 Gen iPod Touch 'go out of support' for new iOS versions less than a year after I bought it. I shouldn't be penalized that way for buying an Apple product late in the period when it is being foisted off on the market as 'current.' Incidentally that iPod is probably the last Apple hardware I will ever buy. There were two iPods that I bought before it.

Let's look at your claim: You had a iPod Touch 3rd gen. It was released Sept 9, 2009 and discontinued Sept 1, 2010 when the iPod Touch 4th gen was released. It started out with iOS 3.1.1 (July 2009) and could be updated to 5.1.1 (May 2012). For only one year was your model "current". The OS was updated for almost 2 years after it was discontinued. I'd have to say your claim is shakyt. For your claim to make sense you would have to buy it after May 2011 in which the current model would be the 4th gen.

Comment Re:My experience with Infosys (Score 1) 348

If your contract is for 12 DBAs or 12 Java programmers, then I'd expect that on day 1, all your personnel are trained/have experience in whatever the contract says. In my experience, only 1 of 12 had the skills that they contract required. Whereas our company actually had the personnel with the skills that the contract required. Sure some of our people had differing amounts of experience (5-10 years vs 2-3 years) but everyone had their certifications and some experience.

Comment Re:Antitrust... (Score 1) 222

Refusing to sell a competitor's product in order to push their own is anti-competitive. After all, Microsoft was just packaging the browser with the OS; that's even more innocuous, isn't it?

If that's all they were doing, there wouldn't be much of a problem. But people forget all the other tactics that MS did. Against Netscape, MS specifically told OEMs that they would raise their license fees with them if they installed Netscape browsers. OEMs on thin margins couldn't afford it even though it helped their customers. Against, Sun's Java they hinted to Intel that if Intel released a JVM optimized for Intel x86 architecture, MS would "favor" AMD in their next version of Windows.

Compare this to Amazon: They are not going to sell competitor's products which they are under no obligation to sell. If Amazon interfered with Apple or Google selling to others then you might have more of an argument.

Comment Re:My experience with Infosys (Score 1) 348

I didn't deal with the negotiations but was told we offered our old rate but was turned down. So the client was focused more on the bottom line than productivity/effectiveness. It may also have hindered them to get the Infosys contract in many ways; it's hard to justify to upper management that you need more money for a contract when you paid so little in the past for the same contract from a different vendor.