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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 223 223

Go try buying a 2015+ TDI and see if you can run it without a DPF and DEF.. legally.

Good catch, I hadn't seen that the 2015's now include AdBlue. It's a huge step up from the 2007 Diesels that required monthly fillups. At 10k miles at least I'd only have to worry about it with oil changes. Unfortunate, but not a massive impact.

the next generation TDI Golf lost its IRS rear axle

Unless you have one of the mythical Aussie 4 wheel drive Golf TDIs, there isn't a rear axel on the Golf. More correctly, there are two very short axels that so far as I can tell have not been impacted by the addition of DEF.

It does look like they switched from the multilink independent suspension to a solid rear bar and torsion rods. I'm so-so on that. Performance tuning is out the window, but for a daily driver it should be fine, and maintenance is way cheaper.

Not sure on your fuel pump issue or how that would take out the engine. I could see possibly taking out the injectors if you wind up with particulate crap getting rammed into them at 1500 psi. But how are you losing an engine to a fuel pump "explosion"?


Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 463 463

At 200 feet, the spread on a horizontal shot is ~100". If this is 9 pellet buck shot with a perfect spread that means you have a bit over 4 feet of air between each of those pellets. The drone is what, 20" wide? Even a perfect shot has better than eve odds of missing at that distance.

Given a vertical shot where gravity is pulling each pellet even further out of the pattern and it would be a miracle to hit anything.

So switch to bird shot. Figure just over 1.5 oz of lead bb shot in a 12 gauge 3" shell, that's ~80 pellets. Significantly more likely to hit, but at 200 feet, the .56 grams of a pellet is moving at roughly 600 fps between air resistance and gravity, which is just over 9 newtons (2 pounds) of kinetic energy hitting the drone.

This is also assuming that the guy is using the largest commonly fielded bird hunting combo. If he's using a 2.5" or 2" shell, the numbers drop even more.

I would be quite surprised if someone pulled off a 200' vertical shot, hit, and did substantial enough damage to take a drone out of the sky. Yeah, commercial drones are wimpy, but not /that/ wimpy.


Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 3, Informative) 223 223

Actually, I don't benefit. Thanks to the EPA, car makers can't engineer diesels to run with significant reliability.

That's pure BS right there.

I've got an '06 VW Golf TDi that has been running on ULSD since '08 with over 160,000 miles on it. I haven't had a single drive train failure on it.

I've replaced the glow plugs (Wisconsin winters are brutal), the timing belt (at ~100k miles), and regular oil changes at 10k miles. And I still pull 44mpg highway.

No vehicles have required DEF since 2008. It was a short term solution to meet EPA bin requirements in 2007/2008 while still running on low sulfur diesel fuel. Ultra low sulfur diesel, ULSD, does not require DEF to meet EPA requirements.

The EPA hasn't cost any jobs. It increases costs insignificantly, but the quantity of jobs is entirely dependent on demand. The few bucks that EPA regs add to the price of a car do not meaningfully impact demand.


Comment Re: Mickey Mouse copyirght extenstions... (Score 1) 167 167

So what? Some people volunteer to do charity work, does that mean no one should get paid a salary?

Why not? Lots of people give their money to charities which in turn pay their top earners six and seven figure salaries. You should try it. Sounds like it would be right up your alley.

Comment Re: Mickey Mouse copyirght extenstions... (Score 1) 167 167

You may not do what you want with it. You paid a lousy $10 or $50 for a copy for personal use. That's it. The actual asset may cost millions or billions. So if you pay less than $100 for something worth millions/billions, it automatically means you can't do what you want with it. Try using some common sense next time.

You have lost your mind. If I pay less than $100 for something then that means that's ALL it's worth. And if I paid for it, it's mine. Period. You don't like property rights at all, apparently. Your whole viewpoint is you want the government to control everybody and you get to dictate terms. Sorry, that's not how it works. I absolutely can redistribute it if I want. You do NOT get to control me or what I do with my property, no matter what you think your crap is worth.

And it doesn't hurt your culture, because you can still buy the work from the store.

Unless it sucks as bad as your crap does, so the store doesn't want to sell it. And that applies to LOTS of works, many that don't suck as bad as the crap you create. So you used the public domain works, past artists, Shakespeare's words, quotes from Psalms, mistrals songs, folk songs, legends passed down by word of mouth for generations - it all went into the works created after it. You don't get to use all that and then distribute and make money off of it by standing on the shoulders of those giants and then turn around and deny future generations the same ability. You're not special, you're not a snowflake. You're just a flake.

And what gives you the right to decide how much money someone can make off their work?

Because that's the way the market works. Your stuff isn't worth the ink it's written on, of course, but I'll pay for a copy of a work from a good artist if the cost is reasonable. You don't get a right to get paid for your work. You have to market it and hope someone will pay for it. Other people create stuff, too, and some people even distribute their work for free. They can ASK whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they will GET anything. I guess you think you should be able to set a price and have somebody go around with guns and collect money for you by force. Tyrant. TYRANT!

Comment Being that there seems to be no serious messages (Score 3, Interesting) 269 269

Global warming is a complex issue, with many factors and no easy answer. Because of this complexity it makes it easy for someone to just not believe it is true, because the complexity it too much for any one person to handle. It is more complex than switching to solar panels, and electric cars, and stopping cows from having gas.
Fixing these issues requires changing culture, which is hard, and will create a lot of people resistant to changes, they will hire a lot of people to make their point across, to convince others.

We have a lot of science, and we need more... However I think one thing is needed isn't finding a silver bullet, is to counter the destructive marketing with more counter marketing. Many of the colleges and universities who are doing a lot of science on the topic, also have business schools and programs. Get a handful of those MBA and Public relation majors onto your grant, to help spread the information to help change the culture.

I have seen major cultural changes happen due to effective marketing. From 2004 - 2015 where there was talk to make a constitutional amendment to ban Gay marriages, to it being legal in all states. The rise of smart phones and mobile connectivity...

Marking isn't always bad and trying to sell you products, it is also used to explain ideas. They are actually a lot of MBA students who are not about being money grubbing capitalists, but are about trying to make the world better. (MBA with considerations in not-for-profit is a popular track). These grant for science, should also be allocated to students who are trained to sell the ideas to the general population.

Showing a graph doesn't have impact on those who don't know how to read graphs.


Ask Slashdot: Can You Disable Windows 10's Privacy-Invading Features? 453 453

An anonymous reader writes: I really want to upgrade to Windows 10, but have begun seeing stories come out about the new Terms and how they affect your privacy. It looks like the default Windows 10 system puts copies of your data out on the "cloud", gives your passwords out, and targets advertising to you. The main reason I am looking to upgrade is that Bitlocker is not available on Windows 7 Pro, but is on Windows 10 Pro, and Microsoft no longer offers Anytime Upgrades to Windows 7 Ultimate. However, I don't want to give away my privacy for security. The other option is to wait until October to see what the Windows 10 Enterprise version offers, but it may not be available through retail. Are the privacy minded Slashdot readers not going with Windows 10?

For reference, I am referring to these articles.
(Not to mention claims that it steals your bandwidth.)

Comment Re:Invasion of the DMCA trolls? (Score 1) 167 167

The artist created the work so he owns it just like you own your body and mind, no one else does.

By your logic, every artist should have the right to erase the memories of every person that ever heard one of their songs, because there is a copy of the song in those peoples' brains. Is that what you are asserting? That the songwriter owns my brain because his song is in it?

Next think you know, you'll be asking your neighbors to help pay for your porch light, because it reaches their yards and they are using your light.

Just because to AGREE to steal/seize someone's work after a set amount of time, does not absolve you from theft.

So ... you are claiming copyright expiration is a seizure. How does that happen? Do jack-booted thugs show up at your house to take it away from you? No - you still have it. In fact, you can still sell copies. But you can no longer decide that the 2 dozen people that already have copies of your work cannot make more copies. Now there are 25 copies. Did you lose anything? NO. In fact, you were already paid by 24 people that were stupid enough to think a copy of your crap is worth paying for.

Comment Re: Mickey Mouse copyirght extenstions... (Score 1) 167 167

Exclusive right to a work is not a god given right

It may not be god-given, but it should be the ethical and legal right.

It already is. You have exclusive right to anything you create. Now, if you want to distribute it for a fee, then you are given a monopoly on the ability to make copies of that work. The only copy any owners of a copy of your work may create is the one in his/her brain. I have exclusive control of all the books on my bookshelf. Some of them I can scan into my computer and print all the copies I want. Some, however, I am forbidden from doing so by federal law. If I do so, the grantee of the exclusive right to make copies may sue me for infringement. If you create something and you don't want anyone from accessing it, you have a [god-given][inherent][whatever] right to keep it to yourself. When you make a copy for me, it is governed by "first sale doctrine" and I own that copy - exclusively - and may do with it what I want. See - it's not yours any more. That copy is mine.

You paid exactly squat for the talent of the artist, his training and the hard work that went into creating his/her copyrighted works.

That has nothing to do with anything. If the artist releases his work, it's done by creating copies. Those are paid for and owned by the purchasers. I have created MANY works using my brilliance and talent that I have never received any payment for. You do not have a right to be paid for everything you do. Nobody gives a shit about your time or talent if none of it is marketable.

Don't you have a legal government provided right to be safe from physical harm by malicious people, to have protection from thieves who would happily steal your money and property? You do. Well, this is the same exact right that should be provided to artists (from pirates and the freeloading, anti-copyright masses).

Nope, that is incorrect. Property is tangible, and when stolen, you no longer have it. Copyright is not property. It is a right to make copies. A more rational analogy would be that corporations are stealing from people that buy copies of CDs with music on them, by manufacturing them with a limited lifespan. Without the right to make copies of that CD, purchasers are at some point deprived of their property (a copy of some musical bits) without compensation.

My point, it's not a favor provided by the government. It's more like their duty to protect their copyright-holding citizens.

And as I have shown above, your point is demonstrably false. They already protect their copyright-holding citizens. By allowing them to sue someone that makes copies of their works without authorization.

Most artists will create new works even after they're financially successful.

But do they continue for 70 years after they are dead? Because the exclusive right to make copies of their works lasts that long. And it deprives the public of its cultural heritage and the ability to honor and celebrate their artists after they are gone.

So? There are many descendents of people who owned real estate, farms, businesses, hotels and restaurants that are enjoying the fruits of their parents' hard work and investments. How about forcing these descendents to donate their parents' assets to the public domain, just like copyrighted works?

Your inability to see the difference between a tangible asset (and depriving the owner of that tangible asset), and the grant of an exclusive right to perform an activity (copying), is truly a stunning example of your myopic view. The world does not owe you a living. And it certainly does not owe you and your kids a lifetime of earnings for a extremely short-term amount of work.

You will lose an important tape file.