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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Won't know any better (Score 1) 435

by dl_sledding (#49682731) Attached to: Will Robot Cars Need Windows?

Or for those of us who prefer to have our pet as part of the family and not caged during family outings:

Safety and inclusiveness both met.

Not saying that some pets wouldn't be more comfortable and (mentally) secure inside of a carrier; it all depends on the individual. However, you may not want to strap it in, as it may kill your pet in the event of a crash:

Comment: Re:Selling Freezers to Eskimos (Score 1) 126

by dl_sledding (#49594549) Attached to: Obama Announces e-Book Scheme For Low-Income Communities


And, fine, let's say you can buy a $20 computer from goodwill (probably running XP, just waiting to virus the place up, though I've never seen goodwill selling used computers), but what about access? Can't get to the e-book without Internet access. People living hand-to-mouth cannot afford Internet access. People living hand-to-mouth shouldn't be able to afford a cell phone either, or they technically aren't living hand-to-mouth. So, how the hell are they supposed to access the e-book with their $20 computer?

This whole thing is a stunt. The Administration is taking credit for what a bunch of publishers are giving away (probably for hefty tax savings or something) to people who aren't going to be able to use the give-away anyhow. Unless, of course, they spend time in a library (where this would work very well), but do the libraries have the infrastructure and devices available to use in-house?

A stunt not thought through thoroughly. And very transparent as a stunt.

Comment: Re:But will it blend? (Score 2) 247

by dl_sledding (#49578093) Attached to: Breakthough Makes Transparent Aluminum Affordable

Actually, water will stop the latter much more easily than the former... Larger rounds hit the surface tension of a body of water with so much force that they typically disintegrate, whereas smaller rounds, moving more slowly, will penetrate deeper into the water. Either way, a couple of feet of water between you and the bullet will protect you pretty well. Now, the shockwave from that 30mm round hitting the water may be something to contend with...

Also, I haven't seen this type of test performed with depleted uranium shells either. That would be a cool test...

Comment: Re:You no longer own a car (Score 1) 649

by dl_sledding (#49518759) Attached to: Automakers To Gearheads: Stop Repairing Cars

That's the whole point, though... The logical endgame here is to NOT allow you to change your headlamp bulb, and require you to bring it into the shop so that an authorized, qualified technician will replace it properly, thus maintaining the integrity and safety of the automobile.

Logic is not necessarily at play here. They are again going after the aftermarket and home mechanics. If you are not an "authorized" aftermarket manufacturer, who has paid the fee to get the "authorized" label, you will have no business, UNDER THE LAW! This is just like a Microsoft EULA: you pays the price, but you don't really own the device. It's still under the control and maintenance of the manufacturer, and you won't have the right to do any maintenance. Taken to the extreme, there won't be a way to even open the hood unless you have the special tool to open it. And selling the tool to any unauthorized people will be made illegal. Have a flat? You better have paid up your AAA, or you're stranded.

This is a very slippery slope that the law is considering. I hope this is completely and totally quashed. Or at least limited to a voided warranty.

And, there are LOTS of vehicles with LED elements in their headlamps now. They aren't necessarily the headlamp bulb itself, but rather secondary marking lamps. I think that's what A/C was talking about. Hopefully they don't come out with a law that states that they have to be fully functional, OR ELSE a ticket.

Comment: Re:You have to be careful (Score 2) 173

Love your post... Unfortunately, it's completely logical. Therefore, it will not be done. People are stupid pack-thought animals that don't respond well to logic, even if it's in their best interest.

I miss Kinison and Carlin. Both used simple logic and common sense in their comedy.

Comment: Re:LOL no info on distance (Score 1) 55

a well deployed and layed out wireless network.

Like "they" have done so far in the US? They've been deploying for 30+ years and STILL don't have a well deployed network! They were supposed to be 100% done by 1985, before the FCC sold it's soul and started accepting cash for extensions rather than selling the unfulfilled licenses to competitors!

And now you expect them to deploy a 4k radius network in any usable amount of time?


Comment: Re:Jury Nullification? (Score 1) 197

2. Because rule of democratic law is, in a functioning civilisation, not something for usurpation by the powerful when it hinders their ability to become more powerful.

Riiiiiight. History has shown this to be completely relevant.

The powerful can do anything they damn well please in this country, whether it's legal or not. Nothing is there to stop them, especially the government, which is bought and paid for.

The rest of your points are dead on, though.

Comment: Re:Underlying problem (Score 1) 130

by dl_sledding (#49319065) Attached to: ISPs Worry About FCC's 'Future Conduct' Policing

Agreed. In fact, even MORE regulation was passed with the Bell breakup. And service suffered in many ways. With Bell, you didn't have any repair charges: Bell owned every piece of wire in the home. Including the phone itself. When the phone (or any wire) was broken, Bell fixed it, quickly, without charging the customer. If the phone broke, or some standard changed (50Hz to 60Hz, for instance), Bell just fixed it. No cost, no question. Without Bell, now you are responsible for your wiring in your home and any device connnected to it. If you break something (or a mouse chews through a wire), you are responsible for getting it repaired, and you will be charged for it.

Ever heard of the Rural Call Completion problem? Would never have happened with Bell.

The FCC's rules post-Bell increased the costs of the consumer in multiple ways, and created reams more regulation.

Comment: Re: HOWTO (Score 1) 1081

by dl_sledding (#49305163) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century
Also, you absolutely used the incorrect term. It is impossible for a Government to have morals. A Government may (or may not) have ethics, which are defined in professional or legal ways. Only an individual can have morals: it is a *belief* that something is either right or wrong. A Government cannot have beliefs, only a person can.

So, based on this information, if capital punishment is defined as ethical in the legal sense, a Government has not broken any ethical boundaries by using capital punishment. Your argument is therefore illogical.

Don't anthropomorphize an entity like a Government, or you'll be doing exactly the same thing as those who say businesses are people. And if you believe Governments have morals and yet businesses should not be treated as people, well, then, I have no time to argue with you because you have beliefs that are not logical and trying to convince you otherwise is a waste of time.

A triangle which has an angle of 135 degrees is called an obscene triangle.