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


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Now we need... (Score 1) 202

People have been claiming we were hitting peak population since we hit 1 billion.

So, sometime in the early 1800s. Now take a look at what's happened to ecological diversity since then. Check out the PPM of CO2. Examine the mass of the forests, forested area is relevant but what we really want is active and healthy biomass. That is, if what we want is a predictable climate that doesn't shit all over the spreadsheets...

Those places with an actual growing population will either die out, or figure out a way to deal with it.

Often by ignoring externalities, usually pushing them off directly onto someone else who suffers for it.

Comment Re:Now we need... (Score 1) 202

Unemployment has nothing to do with population numbers. Many (most ?) countries in this world enjoy low unemployment figures with growing demographics.

Well, that's stretching the point a bit, isn't it? First, there's no way it has nothing to do with population numbers. Second, there's not just both unemployment and underemployment; there's also reported unemployment and actual unemployment. Are you simply reading official figures? They are often lies.

Is it really enjoying low unemployment figures if A, the figures are bullshit and/or B, you're working your ass off but not really meeting your needs?

Comment Re:3D printed shoes? (Score 1) 29

Who 3D prints a shoe? Honestly!

Right now? Only experimenters and hipsters. In the future? Everybody. 3d printing is only getting better, and most shoes in the world are probably made out of an assortment of plastics already — certainly most shoes in the states are. Your stockinged foot gets laser-scanned and an ideally fitted pair of shoes is printed in your chosen style, colors, and choice of features. What's not to like, eventually?

Comment Re:Or just do it right (Score 1) 29

Or you could just design it the way you want it in the first place

This will be a design tool, in the box with all the other tools. For example, it's common for large european sedans to be offered with multiple wheelbases. Having auto-generated sliders that would let you stretch a car in between any pair of pillars would simplify design time. And someday, when 3d "printing" is far more developed than it is now, you'll stretch the car however you want it before you "print" it. Perhaps we'll come up with some way to form sheet metal panels without making stamping dies, or maybe we'll come up with cheaper ways to make and shape carbon fiber, and make panels from it... it won't necessarily be literally additive-printed. The BMW i3 proves that such a process could be used today, at least for certain very ugly classes of automobile.

Comment Re:i8 or nothing baby (Score 1) 80

I rate the Aztek as being less ugly that the PT Cruiser, plus the Aztek never made it outside the US.

Well, this implies you don't live here in the US, where you might actually encounter one of these vehicles. Just like the i3 is staggeringly uglier in person than in BMW press photos, the Aztek is fractally ugly. The more you look at it, the more new things you find to hate about it. When I saw it, I seriously thought it was a concept car that hadn't been refined yet. But no, it was a production vehicle already, in all its... glory. Every proportion just screams wrongness, like a bug wearing an Edgar suit.

Comment Re:Ignorant fucking asshole (Score 1) 168

Sure, but the charge should have been trespassing or something like that. The drone hit some seats. This isn't like having a gasoline fight at a gas station kind of reckless.

No, this was having a baseball game in a crowded park kind of reckless. You could easily wind up hitting someone with a ball (or even a bat) in that kind of environment. This drone was easily heavy enough to harm someone if it fell on them, and he clearly wasn't as in control of it as he thought he was. As well, odds are it was powered by a LiPo, which is a fire hazard. (I have LiPos, I use them, but any time they are outside of their protective storage, you should have an extinguisher ready and you should be able to access any place it might ignite...)

Comment Re:One more reason we need restrictions on drones. (Score 0) 168

Furthermore, behavior like this gives us an idea of what would happen if 'flying cars' were ever readily available.

Whether it's an excuse or not, you really have to agree with Moller (sp?) here. If you get a flying car, it really has to fly itself. A roadable airplane, not so much, but that's a whole other beast (and you can buy one already.)

Comment Re:Ignorant fucking asshole (Score 2) 168

Ah, so people who can't afford an expensive hobby should still get to do the hobby anyway, just irresponsibly?

It's a dumb argument anyway, because most people don't have a front lawn into which they can crash their aircraft. Talk about an ivory tower perspective! If they didn't have stability software, then they'd be buying a heli or a plane without stability software, and then taking it to a public park or a school (commonly the nearest open field to a person's house) for their first flight. And they could well harm someone then. Instead, people are taking their first flights with their quads at home, because you can feasibly do that. They're running a greater risk of personal injury or property damage as a result, and odds are greater that they will learn to fly without crashing into things before they go out into public.

No, the only real difference is the cost barrier is vanishing. Forget all that jazz about stability software; you can literally buy a complete hand-launched glider, all the electronics, and a charger (because you're going to want to run the electronics on a little bitty LiPo for weight reasons) for under $200. A decent radio used to cost that much but now it's only around thirty bucks for a 2.4 GHz 6ch and the programming cable from HK. You can buy a quad off the shelf for about that as well. People were careful with their big fancy RC models back in the day because they built them and tuned them and made them work, and they were expensive. Today's models are cheap. Without that barrier to entry, a whole new class of yahoo may participate.

Comment Re:Or for slightly less per month (Score 1) 80

The higher priced the car, the less they lose as a percentage.

Hahahaha nope. A 1997 Audi and a 1997 Honda both cost around three grand now, but guess which one cost more to begin with? And you take a horrible bath on the most expensive cars (the S550s, the A8s, etc) in the first three years, almost without exception.

Comment Re:i8 or nothing baby (Score 1) 80

Yep the one car that is uglier than a PT Cruiser.

You forgot the first-generation Pontiac Aztek, and arguably, the VW Thing. But the Aztek is undeniable. It looks like the bounding box for a PT Cruiser. It looks like the shipping crate for a Citroen.

I saw my first i3 recently, though, and I was stunned at just how ugly it is in person. Serious wow factor, as in, wow that is about the ugliest pile of shit I've ever seen. I think the technology is pretty nifty, but I wouldn't like to be caught dead in the same photograph as an i3.

"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman