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


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: THINK (Score 2) 74

by bussdriver (#49450129) Attached to: Amazon Gets Approval To Test New Delivery Drones

Why are flying cars stupid? Because energy is not free. All other issues are minor; physics and resources costs come first.

F= ma. So that is ( 100mph horizontal + approximately 100mph vertical fall ) x mass

Packaging is only designed to handle about a 5 ft drop so we are looking at a safety risk.

For safety reasons drones have to SEE that means it will be difficult to prevent alternative uses for the cameras!

Nobody is thinking about the obvious: ROBOT TRUCKS with flying delivery for the last 5-30m from the truck. A flying bees nest of drones begins to make it practical. Robots navigating to doors is incredibly difficult and risky but flying that last 30m makes it a far easier problem. Plus the truck can monitor the whole process (and recharge the drones which will always have limited range since they waste most their energy LIFTING.)

Comment: You don't know Franken - you are wrong (Score 1) 306

by bussdriver (#49402623) Attached to: Al Franken Urges FBI To Prosecute "Revenge Porn"

He was recently elected; he isn't getting any points for doing this now - if that were the case he'd wait many years before doing this.

He needs media attention to create pressure and build momentum plus we have the worst congress probably in our history so stuff like this is all that has a chance of passing. It still won't end up with a law during this congress.

Comment: Camera is useless (Score 2) 447

by bussdriver (#49367013) Attached to: Why the Final Moments Inside a Cockpit Are Heard But Not Seen

All the sensor data and controls should go into the box; that will tell you what was going on far far more than a blurry video. You could store the state of every single control in detail over time for hours in the space it takes to store a few frames of video. Besides that you could use such information to find patterns in how they handle disaster situations which could be used for education and design... and A.I. Pilot suicides like this are extremely rare... but we want to spend a ton of money so we can watch the person tilt the thing down into the ground on CNN in a loop for a few days.

Comment: Don't jump to conclusions so fast (Score 1) 198

by bussdriver (#49361265) Attached to: Prison Inmate Emails His Own Release Instructions To the Prison

You only know because they caught the man; in the USA the guy would still be free and nobody would be the wiser.

If somebody noticed anything fishy the usual lazy excuse of "It's not my job" would prevent actions from being taken; unless, you can be fired or sued few people here lift a finger.... and if you do take selfless initiative you are equally at risk of being fired or sued.


by bussdriver (#49300161) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

It will be harder to fool a majority of everybody than a majority of 50% who bother to vote. Just think about it, the people you fool WILL GO VOTE and the people you don't will either abstain or vote for the opposition.

When you notice the impact of impulsive people who don't care and pick major candidates is when you've gamed the public to the point where your election is so close that anything; including the weather, could decide who wins. The MORE people the more difficult it is to game the majority of the populace.

Majority rule does not produce the best results but it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the majority for how happy they are with their results. It is their fault if they are a bunch of sheep; you can't excuse yourself from civic duty as easily when you have to at least participate.

You have to be a moron to fall for the "right to abstain" argument. Everybody can go to vote and not choose any candidate or write in a joke candidate. But to argue Ayn Rand with the usual appeal to absolute freedom is ignoring a fundamental concept of civilization; your duty to society.

Comment: Re:good luck (Score 1) 99

by bussdriver (#49201571) Attached to: Has the Supreme Court Made Patent Reform Legislation Unnecessary?

Being first to market doesn't count then... Trade secrets still continue today and corporate espionage is at an all time high. So they still have plenty to hide which they can not patent. Before patents, or even before they existed as they do today there was plenty going on in the world and secrets were a bigger deal. Things did disappear as a result but things also leaked out.

Innovation is a meaningless word today. Mostly it is applied to things that are not true inventions but applications of inventions by others.

There are reasons to invent which will continue without patents. The significant inventions are largely outside the corporate world anyhow. They will invent ways to bring true innovations to market because a profit can still be had-- just not as much of one for as long. In some cases growth slows. But you can't really prove that current experiment is the best; it's merely a belief, an assertion.

I think most of today's patents have little to do with making the world better for the inventor's children. You also act like it's all made up of people in their garages; when it is not; also the people in low income situations are an insignificantly small proportion. Maybe there is an argument to be had from providing some dream like someday becoming a pro-sportsman but the odds of that are slim to the point of being false advertizing... but it may motivate some people so then it must be ethical right?

Some of us do things for other reasons. more mature reasons. exclusive ownership with the hope (not promise) of piles of money does not motivate everybody to the same degree. Academia is loaded with such people. Also the military has some people who are not there for the money...

Comment: If comcast is FUNDING IT it is BAD. (Score 1) 550

The FCC and the executive branch have ZERO power to fix our internet EXCEPT under the administrative powers of the FCC which is fully within it's rights to classify ISPs under title 2.

This is the only thing they can really do; that previous move they made was stupid and bound to lose in the courts like it did.

What is really needed is a sane law to be passed which does actual Net Neutrality. But as anybody who has been paying attention (Faux News doesn't count) knows that our government is foobar. That isn't going to happen and if history is any guide, despotism is all we can realistically expect in the future and if people are lucky, a short lived one before another democracy forms. As is the life cycle of democracies... (see Ben Franklin's full speech which closed out the constitutional convention, it's always relevant.)

Comment: Mod parent up. (Score 1) 517

by bussdriver (#49190253) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Anybody who's watched the EPA fight with some corporation knows it goes way beyond FUD tactics. They will try to setup roadblocks to even being regulated in the 1st place. Then after the information is gathered, they not only try to deny the facts and create uncertainty about them --even clear results-- but their P.R. people attack witnesses, officials, the agency, and they almost always fund attacks against the EPA, government regulation, and fund politicians who do the same (or buy them to do that;) it's not even well hidden because we don't have any good journalists to point out the "other side" is usually just a few corporations (and their hired PR hitmen.)

They also will fund PR campaigns about how smoking is good for you, etc. hire some PhD whores (from brothels called "think tanks,") or advertize how we are not using ingredient X anymore, when they just lowered it's amount or choose something they knew was worse. Even more diabolical are the TV ads they will buy that don't sell anything at all just so the TV news will not report bad things about them. This includes PBS. I knew people who worked in TV news; it happens!

They'll also dodge and ignore things even in court to drag out the product sales as long as possible knowing people are dying and even when the court proves their whole plan they just get a small monetary fine which still made it worth doing (thinking of Merck. ) The process is quite similar because we have an industry of experts who know how to game the whole system who help anybody with enough $ to hire them.

Comment: Graft is everywhere (Score 2) 267

by bussdriver (#49181239) Attached to: The US's First Offshore Wind Farm Will Cut Local Power Prices By 40%

Nuclear power is in the billions to build a plant. We have 2 in the USA that are not coming cheap. It NEVER includes all the free or really cheap government services that nuclear power gets and needs. You complain about wind but nuclear burns money and costs more than solar; graft is always included for both. Thing is, with big massive centralized power generation you have a few powerful players who's political pull is greater than smaller more distributed alternatives (unless the smaller players can unite.)

I've read many times that no nuclear power station in the USA has ever made a profit. ever. not without accounting games shifting the cost onto tax payers. It's a game of stealing as much money as possible; not making legitimate profit. I know in my area they will build stations with lots of bonuses/incentives and low interest loans etc-- then years later get even more taken off if not chucking the remainder of the debt plus expansions of tax-free periods etc. (in the name of jobs, but really these new jobs are being subsidized.) Maybe 30 years later it gets even but the debt and incentives are not repaid. But to be fair, power generation is infrastructure that helps the local economy in ways you can't directly measure... like roads. but it would be better if it were handled like the roads... which have less overhead and work just as well.

Comment: good luck (Score 1) 99

by bussdriver (#49180609) Attached to: Has the Supreme Court Made Patent Reform Legislation Unnecessary?

Good luck trying to actually prove that not having patents does more harm than having sane patents. You can't really prove it. It was another social experiment like the ones before it. Without patents, people will sit on secrets and use security by obscurity which could prevent or lose inventions that benefit society. Which is the reason patents were created; however, today we better understand this situation. Furthermore, this is the information age where secrets are not well hidden for long.

Employers have to be careful with their secrets... but because of patents they don't have to worry much about secrets leaking out so their employees are disposable... not entirely because there is plenty of stuff they can't OWN so they try to force people into non-compete contracts so they can screw over more employees! The paranoia of competition never really goes away even for the many monopolies (who worry about democracy and the free market so they attack it constantly. the true traitors.)

Sure some inventions wouldn't happen; but a great deal of the big inventions come from publicly funded sources who do most the groundwork if not nearly everything up to the mass production stage. Sure, we now have private funding playing a bigger role at undermining our research institutions but they used to be better funded... Also we used to do research without patents PREVENTING and adding to the cost of doing important research that benefits all of humanity.

Great discoveries are not happening because some prof and his students are unable to use patented techniques or because they only can get grants for better Viagra and not for dull groundwork but fundamental to future discovery.

User hostile.