Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Why batteries? Hydrogen much denser. (Score 2) 119

As I posted below, it seems pretty obvious you would use fuel cells instead of batteries for an electric aircraft... from your energy density link compressed hydrogen has an even better energy density (142 MJ/kg) than jet fuel (46 MJ/kg)!

The cost of hydrogen production is estimated to become close to gasoline production over the next decade or so, but there is a huge pollution benefit to using fuel cells which could drive adoption quicker.

The currently very low cost of oil is probably the main thing that would keep airplanes from going electric soon.

Comment Fuel cell or battery? (Score 1) 119

An electric airplane sounds like an interesting idea, especially for short hop flights...

It also seems like it would be a nice case for fuel cells because you have a much more limited need for fueling stations (basically just airports) and it would be easier to store enough energy for a moderately long flight.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

You don't have any natural rights to be free from tigers or from gravity. But you DO have the natural expectation that another rational being will understand that if they attack you, they are waiving their own claim on living peacefully. That you don't grasp this is pretty amazing, really.

You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down.

My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point. Irrational people do indeed look to take advantage circumstances in which they feel willing to take the chance that their use of violence will go unchallenged because of unpleasant or unexpected circumstances. Which doesn't change the fact that they lose their claim to life when they deny you yours. That's the right you naturally have: to use (or have used on your behalf) the violence necessary to defend your life. Why? Because rational people don't kill other people except in self defense. Those who initiate the violence waive their rights to live in peace.

You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.

Comment Which apps? (Score 1) 244

Browsing source on my repositories I can use Ctrl-F just fine - which other apps have you encountered that?

I have to admit I've never tried using the UI over dial-up, but that seems like a pretty niche issue for most people. You could still use a command line or other git client instead which would perform a lot better with that kind of network constraint... I totally agree with those who say the modern web has gotten too bloated but for something like BitBucket I would hate to lose some nice features the site has to accommodate those with really slow connections.

Comment Re:fast growth (Score 5, Interesting) 244

If anyone can take over the throne from GitHub, why would it not be BitBucket? They produce the excellent and free Git client Sourcetree, and all around have a more reasonable pricing model than GitHub.

It's not like I don't have a GitHub account, everyone does, but I also have a BitBucket account and have no qualms switching to them entirely if GitHub really starts being a problem (well, MORE of a problem since they did just recently have a big outage... perhaps that was early warning).

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

Exactly, because in the jungle there are no rights

Oh, I get it now. You think that human beings aren't any different in their cognitive abilities, capacity for reason, and ability to think abstractly and communicate than are, say, tigers or lemurs.

I don't need it, but I need a government to tell others that.

No, you can tell them yourself, and if they are too irrational to digest the concept, and you're too weak to defend against violent, irrational people, then you need a government to help you protect your rights.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

So you think that just because you decided to kill them, they didn't have the right to live? That's really your take on things?

If you initiate violence, you are giving up your OWN claim on your right to live. You have the right up until you infringe on someone else's. That's simple, rational stuff. If you can't use reason in your world view, then you are by definition looking at things irrationally. If you act irrationally, and it results in you doing something like killing those 9 people, then you have waived your own right to your life. Do you get that? You don't need a government to tell you that. But if you can't figure it out without a government telling you that, please do the rest of us a favor and don't do anything dangerous like voting.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

In a modern society arms are useless.

Really? Then why does every single political leader - across the spectrum, including flaming lefty tyrants, eastern European strongmen, laid-back Scandinavian royalty and elected officials, mayors of cities, etc. - have armed protection at their disposal?

Why do police departments train in the use of arms? Why do militaries, even strictly defensive ones, understand the need to be able to use arms?

It's nice for you that you live in a fantasy world where there is no need for a 90-pound woman to ever defend herself against a man three times her size. Where is it, exactly, that you live that there are absolutely no violent people, no robberies, no rapes, no crimes that endanger lives? Please be specific, and if you would, please link to some reports that show your zero crime rate. Not that you will, of course, because you're full of it, and you know it.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

What a load of shit. Without a government, you have no rights. Go live in a jungle sometime...

Wow, you really haven't thought this through, have you? You should.

So, you and another 100 people are in the jungle. 10 of you decide to get together in a group (you know, assembling) and chant something they think is important (you know ... speaking). Who is giving them the perfectly natural behavioral elbow room to assemble and express themselves? The other 90 people who aren't even paying attention to them? The trees? No. These are perfect examples of "natural rights." If some of the other 90 people decide to get together and force those 10 people to no longer gather, or no longer speak their minds, they are infringing on their freedom to assemble and speak.

The US constitution recognizes this, and its first amendment explicitly says that the government can't infringe on that right. There's no place in the constitution that defines the right to assemble or speak ... those are a given. They are self-evident, natural freedoms that can only be limited by other people or groups. Those 10 people don't need the other 90 to do anything in order for their group of 10 to be able to gather and speak. They can do that without any action or permission from anybody. If someone decides to take action shut them up, that's infringement of that right.

Without a government, a society, a rule of law, etc there is no such thing as 'rights'.

Nonsense. Without rule of law, there is no protection of rights. You really think that your right to speak comes from the government? You truly don't understand that it's the government's job to prevent other people (and those same government institutions) from forcibly shutting you up?

Comment Re:This is what real choice looks like (Score 0) 388

However, I'm unsure how useful it is to brick the phone rather than disable the fingerprint reader in question and force the user to enter their passcode they created

At first that seems a bit nicer for the user, but thinking longer term I think it makes a lot of sense to disable the device if it's detected it has been tampered with - I feel that's OK because of the ease of restoring the system from a backup, including the secure items in the keychain. If one bit of hardware has been compromised who knows what else was - why risk it? It just adds a lot of complexity around knowing the system is truly secure or not.

Comment This is what real choice looks like (Score -1) 388

Apple is not "getting away" with anything. They are actually being serious about security on the phone. I know this might be confusing because you are used to a world that just does the minimum possible to pretend to secure hardware and telling you it's actually secure...

This is what real choice looks like. People can buy an iPhone that is actually serious about security and may lock you out of data if you mess up the device. That's why backups are important... after all if anyone had an iCloud backup of their iPhone it wouldn't matter if the phone suddenly decided to lock you out, because you could get another device and it would be restored.

Or, people can say - I'd prefer not to be as serious about security, and buy an Android device. That is a valid choice also and I can see why others would make it. Please however do not think if that is your preference, that we should also want that same lower level of security to be default. I prefer for example my parents have this higher level of security and I just have to make sure that they have backups that are working, but at least I don't have to worry about malware or thieves stealing the farm as it were.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Life is a garment we continuously alter, but which never seems to fit." -- David McCord

Working...