Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:1.8 million drivers will lose their job. (Score 1) 142

by icebike (#47391027) Attached to: Autonomous Trucking

We do have the train routes, railroads have been rail-banking surpluss rail lines for years because truck traffic
took all the loads. But in most cases the rail is still in place, and bringing it up to standards is cheaper
than rebuilding all of our freeways every 5 years just to keep truck drivers employed.

Comment: Re:1.8 million drivers will lose their job. (Score 1) 142

by icebike (#47389845) Attached to: Autonomous Trucking

Then when conditions are better, the automated trucks can form a train behind the automated snowplow

Here's a better Idea: Drive those trucks to a REAL TRAIN depot and get them off our roads.

The amount of long haul that is done by trucks in this country is ridiculous, dangerous, and unsustainable. Our roads are being beaten to dust by an industry that doesn't pay taxes at a rate anywhere near sufficient to cover the damage it causes.

We should be mandating rapid train routes for any transport distance greater than 500 miles, with computerized and mostly automated loading and unloading facilities instead of trying to smarten up every truck on the road.

Comment: Re:Did the editor know...this is Google/Android te (Score 1, Troll) 242

by icebike (#47362543) Attached to: Disappointed Woz Sells His "Worthless" Galaxy Gear Watch

>> Apple co-founder..."Galaxy Gear...worthless"

Hmmm...I read that as "Apple insider says Google device bad." were expecting?

Wos has used and praised lots of different Android gear.

Still there is something fishy about the whole story.

Multi-billionaire takes the time to sell something on ebay? Really? REALLY?
Even having one of his "people" do that would never pay for itself.
Why would he not just flip it into the trash, or give it to some kid, or donate it
to some museum with a signed letter of gifting, which would quickly raise its worth by a factor of 10 or 100.

He says its worthless, and then proves it isn't, and pockets the money? Really?
The whole story seems unbelievable.

Comment: Re:No Way! (Score 1) 261

by icebike (#47124665) Attached to: Curved TVs Nothing But a Gimmick

Nonsense. Curved TV's ensure you see a square picture if you are sitting exactly dead centre. That is a tangible difference.

I've never actually seen anyone watch anything in 3d in their home.

Why would I want a square picture of what is broadcast in a decidedly un-square format? You've substituted your so-called square view for glare from many angles. And you've further reduced the acceptable viewing angle.

As for not having seen anyone watching 3D in their home, I suspect you aren't
invited into those homes that have a 3D telly. That hardly is a standard by which to judge.

My neighbor down the street does, and he subscribes to Comcast 3D service.
It does work. Its nice. Not all that much of an improvement, if you ask me, just a novelty.

Is it a fad? Sure.

But just because your small outlook on the world doesn't include something, its no in indication that something doesn't exits, or that it doesn't work.

Comment: Re:No Way! (Score 1) 261

by icebike (#47124505) Attached to: Curved TVs Nothing But a Gimmick

I'm in the large minority of people who have never got a 3D effect from a TV or movie to work,

I've never met a single normally sighted person who failed to get a 3D effect from Movies or TV to work.
So this large majority of which you speak doesn't seem to exist unless this group also includes all those who have never been to a 3D movie.

Comment: Re:No Way! (Score 4, Informative) 261

by icebike (#47123383) Attached to: Curved TVs Nothing But a Gimmick

Curved TV's aren't better? I can't believe it!

The odd bit is at the end of TFS where they say that curved TVs are a gimmick like 3D TVs. There is a big difference, 3D TVs actually give an appearance of 3D when viewing 3D content, (all the brain-and-eye confusing tricks and deception notwithstanding). Every reasonably normal sighted person can see the 3D effect, most just don't think its worth the price (or the headaches).

Curved TVs on the other hand provide a picture that is indistinguishable from normal flat screens, EVEN when you see them side by side in the store.

Comment: Re: I beg to differ. (Score 2) 370

Draconian rules from the EU are only trotted out against american companies.

The EU does not care about its citizens privacy at all, until there is a foreign company involved.
Half the EU countries have pernicious government spying even more deeply than the NSA.

This privacy a fiction trotted out only against off shore interests.

Comment: Re:I beg to differ. (Score 1) 370

The court provided no guidelines other than the specific case they based the decision on.

In that case, Google doesn't have to review it. No standards for review was provided.

They shouldn't review any of these, they should simply reject all of them.

(Or at best have a computerized review, that is programmed to deny in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases. After all, if a computer algorithm was what got these links into the search engine, another algorithm can be used to reject claims that don't meet an excruciatingly tight set of criteria.)

Until the complainant comes back with a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction, THEN and ONLY THEN, should Google review them, and they should still err on the side of rejection to force an even higher court to review.

The court made this bed - the courts can sleep in it.

Them as has, gets.