Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:Good points, bad points (Score 1) 282

by buck-yar (#49334599) Attached to: Ford's New Car Tech Prevents You From Accidentally Speeding

True, every instant looking at the speedometer is time not looking at the road. Speed limits should be eliminated. If someone can't determine a safe speed to drive at, they shouldn't be driving.

When I see a cop has someone pulled over on a 2 lane road, cars coming into my lane to pass the hazard (which is illegal) is more dangerous than whatever speed the driver was pulled over for. Heck IMO bicycles on a public road is far more dangerous than speeding. I don't know how many times I felt like a car was playing chicken with me, coming at me headon in my lane to pass a bicycle. Yet riding a bicycle on the road is legal.

Comment: Re:They need a Microwave (Score 1) 66

by buck-yar (#49232711) Attached to: Secret Service Testing Drones, and How to Disrupt Them

Every flight controller I'm aware of requires either a radio frequency connection to a RC controller, or GPS.

Both can be messed with. By building a drone myself, radio interference is a huge issue. A directed 1575mhz signal towards the drone would certainly interfere with its lock on the GPS satellites (my Ublox M8n gets disrupted just from other electronics on the vehicle!). And to knock out flight control, just emit something around 433 mhz, or 2.4ghz towards the craft and that should take it out. Granted emitting a powerful signal in those frequencies will have collateral effects, but with a drone endangering the white house, I'm sure that doesn't matter.

Comment: Re:Voluntary participation? (Score 1) 168

by buck-yar (#49038751) Attached to: Aims To Keep the Airspace Above Your Home Drone-Free

Its only trespassing if you have your land posted. If not, you have to ask the person (or object) to leave, if they don't you must have law enforcement remove them. You cannot physically remove someone, or that is battery or kidnapping.

Destroying someone's drone would be personal property destruction

Comment: Pomegranate (Score 1) 84

by buck-yar (#48763377) Attached to: Microbe Found In Grassy Field Contains Powerful Antibiotic

Is it Pomegranate? If not they should look at that took. Pomegranate may be literally perfect. It inhibits bad gut bacteria and promotes beneficial ones like Bifidobacterium

Look at this chart, it is quite possibly the greatest modulator of gut bacteria ever

Comment: Re:This is why we don't have flying cars. (Score 4, Informative) 232

by buck-yar (#48720623) Attached to: Aircraft Responsible For 2.5% of Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions

From some website:

A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).

This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let's call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour (900 km/h)!

I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. -- Isaac Asimov