Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re:Obviously (Score 3, Interesting) 239

by fyngyrz (#49819479) Attached to: Fuel Free Spacecrafts Using Graphene

I wonder if they've weighed the sponges. One possibility is that the sponges are deteriorating in a particular direction, thus engaging in conventional "stuff out one end makes you go the other way" propulsion. And also becoming traditional "will get used up" style fuel in the process. :)

Though it'd be all kinds of awesome if it was creating coherent motion out of energy delivered by photons without wearing out. Now *that* could be a space drive.

Comment: Re:Pay them market value (Score 2) 221

The fact they were working at CMU suggests they were already paying them market value.

The fact they aren't working there anymore suggest they weren't.

Depends on your definition of market value. If they went to multiple companies I'd say CMU was paying below, but the fact they all went to Uber suggests that Uber paid well above market value to make sure they accepted the offers.

What I think actually happened is that Uber treated the Robotics Engineering Center as a startup with a set of internal working relationships and expertise that they wanted. Since they couldn't actually buy the Center they just hired away all the researchers.

So the employees rather than shareholders, managers or the CEO got a fat paycheck for being good at their jobs. That's communism!

I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing but it's different from how we usually evaluate market value for employees.

Comment: Re:Pay them market value (Score 2) 221

How loathsome that CMU will have to pay their researchers MARKET VALUE to keep them!

The fact they were working at CMU suggests they were already paying them market value.

What I think actually happened is that Uber treated the Robotics Engineering Center as a startup with a set of internal working relationships and expertise that they wanted. Since they couldn't actually buy the Center they just hired away all the researchers.

Comment: Re:Tesla Is Good For All (Score 1) 349

you are aware that affordability is sort of a huge part of mass market appeal, right? When I go out shopping for a new car, Tesla is not on the radar as it doesn't appeal to me because it costs way too much. Similar to how Ferrari doesn't really appeal to me, awesome products, but way too expensive.


Tesla costs too much because the tech is new and somewhat experimental, but if rich people keep buying them the tech will mature and costs will come down until it's mass market.

Ferrari is different in that it's a luxury brand, so it will always be good quality but more expensive. I'm sure it drives technology forward as well, particularly is design and manufacturing, but maybe not to the extent of a Tesla.

Comment: Re:Tesla Is Good For All (Score 1, Redundant) 349

I don't agree at all. Until one of his products becomes a mass market conusmer item and not a niche play, then I'll come to your opinion. But so far none of his products have shown any mass market appeal and can't even compete in their niche without government subsidies.

So it goes for virtually any new product.

That's one thing the rich are actually good for, buying the sometimes dubious new inventions and supporting product development until things are mature enough for mass market.

Comment: Re:So the concept of Putlerbot sockpuppet is true! (Score 1) 182

by quantaman (#49806239) Attached to: Professional Internet Troll Sues Her Former Employer

I thought that Putin most likely would not waste money on such nonsense, but I did find the comments humorous.

But now I am starting to think that these... "people" aren't just utterly delusional Internet users from Russia, but actual, paid-for, managed and directed sockpuppets.

I think it's a bit of both.

There are wildly delusional advocates for almost any position, I don't see why Russian foreign policy would be any different. Especially when you consider that Russia does have some legitimate grievances against the West (I get why people wanted the NATO expansion, but expanding an anti-Russia alliance into the former USSR was more than a bit provocative).

At the end of the day Russians are just like anyone else, and they'll be willing to swallow a boat-load of BS so they can cheer for Russia. Some of them will go online and undergo crazy rationalizations on comment boards to convince people why Russia is in the right. They're largely following the same pool of newspapers, blogs, and pundits, so they'll all repeat the same arguments and crazy theories.

I have no idea how to differentiate these people from the actual trolls.

Comment: Re:$15/month for one channel? (Score 1) 39

by quantaman (#49804041) Attached to: Android, Chromecast To Get HBO Now

Sure, it's HBO, and sure they have some stellar in-house programming; but it's one channel. People who are dumping their $60/month (and up!) cable TV plans aren't likely to pay $15 for one channel. Heck, Netflix is under $10. Even the old baboons that run Hulu don't try to charge that much for Plus...

If you're on Comcast's lowest tier TV-included package - "Internet Plus" - HBO is a free add-on. Right now we're paying ~ $70/month total for internet plus Cable TV (The TV channels include HD and are basically a throw-in, it's how Comcast tries to hide how many of its customers don't want cable TV anymore). I can't imagine paying $15 for any single channel.

Maybe, though I'm guessing a lot of people only watch shows from 3-4 channels on a regular basis and watch only a very small amount of programming for the rest. HBO is a very exclusive channel, but even if you did that for all those 3-4 channels you'd pay $45-$60 for almost all the programming you get currently, but commercial free and on-demand with a back catalog.

Comment: 20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. (Score 5, Insightful) 582

by fyngyrz (#49793209) Attached to: How Tesla Batteries Will Force Home Wiring To Go Low Voltage

To avoid the 20% to 40% power loss when converting from DC to AC

...they're doing it wrong. DC to AC conversion is easily achieved in the high 90% range. For instance, a typical solar inverter is around 95% efficient. And you can do better, it just gets more expensive (although that's a one-time cost, whereas energy loss is a constant concern.)

Someone is pushing some other agenda here.

Comment: Still awesome (Score 1) 416

by fyngyrz (#49793145) Attached to: What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI

Sure. Did it to myself decades ago. Offspring of my genetic line aren't of the least bit of interest to me; perfectly happy raising kids of other birth who needed parents (5 so far, mostly excellent results.) Plus that whole "all the bareback sex with my SO we want, any time" thing is awesome.

Which, again, is just how I approach feline guardianship. Don't need new kittens from them. Plenty of kittens out there that need to own their own human.

Comment: Re:Overblown (Score 1) 396

Heh, what I really l hope for in the long run is that us Europeans start talking about a sovereign European nation.
We should all keep our regional differences and be proud of them but start to feel like what we are, members of the great European nation.
Be proud of what we share, cherish what makes us unique.

Comment: Re:Yes to Brexit (Score 1) 396

I look across that ocean and like what I see.
At least, I hope we aren't going with brain dead American schemes like 'Companies are Persons' :).

With nations as with companies, larger scale is often synonymous with greater efficiency and thus savings.
Yes there are policies that are best tackled on a local or regional level but things like fiscal and safety legislation are together with defence best done on a EU-wide scale.

It's that old 'Level Playing Field' that will enable greater prosperity for all without hurting the few.

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst