Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:A few years ago (Score 1) 51 51

I don't get it. How the HELL can Canonical ever call this a success? The phones are not going on sale to the general public. How many units does it take to make back the NRE?? Well, if you are intentionally limiting the units, it may take a hell of a lot. What is up with this business move?

United States

US Military To Develop Star Wars-Style Hoverbikes With British company 108 108

New submitter amalcolm writes: The U.S. military may soon be zooming around on Star Wars-style hoverbikes. U.K. based Malloy Aeronautics has joined forces with Survice Engineering to develop the vehicles for the Department of Defense. "The Department of Defense is interested in Hoverbike technology because it can support multiple roles," said Mark Butkiewicz, who works for Survice. "It can transport troops over difficult terrain and when it's not used in that purpose it can also be used to transport logistics, supplies, and it can operate in both a manned and unmanned asset."

Comment: Re:This was always going to happen (Score 2, Insightful) 288 288

Just a comment on the "status symbol" thing.

How many times have you seen a iPhone enclosed in a big sturdy case designed to protect the thing from nuclear armageddon? And on these cases, how many times do they have a big cut-out for the Apple logo on it? Heaven forbid that the person standing next to you would fail to notice the Apple logo!

No, how many times have you seen a similar thing on a case for any other phone?

This just proves that some people don't just want an iPhone... they want everybody around them to know that they have an iPhone.

I am still waiting for the Apple shoes and matching purse to show up.

Comment: Re:Dream laptop. (Score 1) 46 46

But.... if you want a machine with reasonable gaming performance without the expense of a separate graphics chip, AMD is the only game in town. I don't want the best. I just want something reasonable.

You can get an HP Envy with an AMD FX processor right now. If they throw a Carrizo FX in there (likely to happen) and add a DisplayPort interface (rather less likely), I would be quite happy. I am just bothered that DisplayPort is relegated to the expensive machines only. 30" monitors are downright cheap today compared to what they were three years ago. 4K monitors are well under $1000 now. Why are mainstream laptops limited to HDMI?

Comment: Dream laptop. (Score 1) 46 46

Right now, my dream laptop is a Carrizo with a 1080 panel and a DisplayPort output for around $600 or so. That would let me do some casual gaming, as well as drive a 30" monitor for productivity stuff. I am not holding my breath, however. Just about the only machines with DisplayPort are gaming machine (at least $1000), or business-class machines sporting Intel (with integrated Intel graphics which suck for gaming).

Come on, HP or Asus. Make my dream come true.

Comment: Re:Bureaucrats (Score 2) 312 312

The whole point of the Mother Jones article can be summarized as follows:

1) Person X got mad for some reason at a particular place
2) Person X shot the place up and did not choose it based on it's gun policy.

Fair enough. All I am saying is that this may have happened:

1) Person X got mad for some reason at a particular place
2) Person X realized that people there carry guns and gave up.

Or perhaps this.

1) Person X got mad for some reason at a particular place
2) Person X started to shoot the place up but was shot himself, and thus never made it to the national news.

Are you saying that the last two scenarios never happened? Really?

Comment: Re:Bureaucrats (Score 1) 312 312

Nice quote from the article:

Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.

And yet how many mass shooting were prevented because the person REALIZED that people there did carry weapons. Whoops, the article never mentions this. We only know about the ones that happened, not the ones that never made it past the planning state. Maybe the person goes through with the thought of a mass killing because there is nothing (like an armed response) to stop them. But why let logic get in the way of an article that reinforces your prejudices?

And the "murder-suicide" thing doesn't hold water either. The purpose of a person in this kind of mind set is to do as much damage as possible before they die. If you are going to plan to go out in a blaze of glory and want your own posthumous Wikipedia page, you probably want to kill a dozen before you die, not get shot by an honest citizen as you were getting out of your car. There are many instances of mass shootings being stopped by honest people.

And, don't point to that stupid Mother Jones article about "nobody has stopped a mass shooting." That is full of so many logical holes that you loose credibility by mentioning it.

Comment: Re:Bureaucrats (Score 1) 312 312

Well, Australia and England now cracks down on knife ownership, since they got rid of the gun bogeyman, but violence still happens (actually, violence in Australia has gone UP while it has gone DOWN over here). Do a google image search for "Stop Knife Violence."

Once knives are banned, then it will be "stop club violence" and you will need a license to buy a 2x4.

The problem isn't the weapon, it is human nature, including economics, mental health care, the culture, and the family structure.

Comment: Re:Bureaucrats (Score 4, Insightful) 312 312

You should not determine public policy by "mass violence." True mass shootings are relatively rare -- they just seem common because of the publicity. It is much better to compare the number of mass shooting victims to the number of people who are struck by lightning. There is a thing called "unintended consequences." Maybe you have heard of it.

Now, if you actually DID remove all guns, that means that they have also been removed for the hands of honest citizens, and prevented them from preventing crimes! Guns are used around 800,000 times to per year to deter crime (from Wikipedia on defensive gun use).

Did you know that for every gun used to murder somebody, there are over 30,000 guns that were NOT used in crime? The rates look far worse if you compare the number of penises compared to the number of forcible rapes, and yet you do not claim that we need to reduce the number of male members in society. Why not?

Comment: Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score 5, Insightful) 703 703

I really do not understand the hate involved here. Let's assume that climate change is NOT happening. We still have the following facts:

1) Fossil fuels are a limited supply. Maybe enough for another 50 years. Maybe 100. But still limited.

2) We purchase large amounts of oil from countries that, in general, do not like us.

3) If it were not for oil, our interest in the middle east would decline greatly, which would be a good thing. If Muslims want to kill Muslims, that sounds like their problem. There is no "right" side in a conflict like that.

For all of these reasons, we should be decreasing our dependency on fossil fuels. More fuel efficiency and alternative fuels just simply make long term sense, even without considering climate change.

So, what is the problem?

Comment: Re:Progressive Fix 101 (Score 1) 622 622

You do know that some SUVs have room for more people and/or more cargo, right? I have five kids (three are adopted, before you start whining about overpopulating the planet). Try finding a car that will hold seven people. Some SUVs have third row seating. How about people who want to actually go off-road? Should they drive a Prius so that they need to be towed out of the woods? How about people who have to haul trailers.

In short, you are either short-sighted, or a troll, or both.

Comment: Re:regulation? (Score 1) 245 245

Another stat. Russia has very strict gun control, and they have a much higher murder rate than the US. Using your logic of focusing on only ONE statistic, banning guns leads to an increase in murder, right? I, however, am not as ignorant or dishonest as you appear to be. I could trumpet that Japan bans guns and has a much higher suicide rate, and claim that this is BECAUSE of their gun laws, but that would be dishonest. I realize that countries are complex places.

So, since it appears that the percentage of homicides caused by guns has not been eliminated due to the gun laws, we can draw one of two conclusions:

1) The new gun laws also magically kept people from killing each other with knives and clubs.

2) Perhaps, just perhaps, the drop in the homicide rate is due to some other factor: social, environmental, or economic.

Nope. Can't be #2. Countries never change at all in any other way besides gun laws. Economies are essentially static, stock prices never change, people never move from urban to rural areas, and culture never changes.

No, now that that mystery is solved, we just need to figure out how gun laws keep people from stabbing each other.

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.