Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Just wondering (Score 1) 170

by myowntrueself (#49795943) Attached to: Why Detecting Drones Is a Tough Gig

They are controlled by radio which can be detected.

Why would I need to control it? I'd program it with a path and actions and it would execute them in radio silence.

It could be set up with on-line remote control to fly it in manually then upload a program and disconnect the radio. Ie fly it up to the edge of the detection network, survey the location, plan a flight path to get to the objective as safely and reliably as possible, upload the program then disconnect the radio and the drone performs its recon or attack run. This is not science fiction.

You can't rely on detecting radio signals either.

Comment: Ronnie Phone (Score 5, Informative) 189

by PopeRatzo (#49795819) Attached to: FCC Proposes To Extend So-Called "Obamaphone" Program To Broadband

Just for the record, the "Obamaphone" program has a name. It's called the "Lifeline Assistance Program" and was started in the 1980s by...Ronald Reagan. It has nothing to do with Obama.

Comment: Re:Competition works better (Score 1) 230

When people talk about "we haven't returned to the moon" [], it refers to the end of the Apollo program.

So, the trips we've made to the moon SINCE the Apollo program (the most recent was in 2013), just don't count? Why is that?

Further, you apparently posted that "Let Me Google That For You" link without looking at any of the search results that Google provided you. The first link is to a Quora discussion about manned space travel, the second is a CNN article about whether we still need to have men on the moon.

So are you suggesting that only manned missions count as space exploration?

But then... your somewhat hastily provided Google resultsreally start to get interesting:

We get a YouTube video about extraterristrials, two pages from "Above Top Secret" and a website that suggests, "NASA is hiding a very dark secret from us" and that's why we haven't been to the moon. Then there's a link to a young adult Transformers novel on Google books and then a site called "Educating Humanity" which tells us the reason we haven't sent men to the moon is...aliens.

The next time you think to post a "Let Me Google That For You" page, you might want to actually check the links it provides to make sure they don't make you look like a complete schmuck.

Comment: Re:I got it! (Score 1) 109

I reallize the a person is going to take what the market will pay them, but it is seriously difficult to imagine that they are worth that much.

Then you really won't want to read about David M. Zaslav, from the Discovery Network and The Learning Channel (former home of the Duggar family and Honey Boo Boo) who's total compensation in 2014 was...$156 million!

It is good to be an oligarch.

Comment: Re:Competition works better (Score 1) 230

The fact that we went to the moon in "fucking 1969" is exactly the problem: it was a colossal waste of money. And the reason we haven't returned is the same reason: it still would be a colossal waste of money.

Um, we DID return, and multiple times.

Do you have any of your facts straight or do you just type with the seat of your pants?

First, you believed Columbus' voyages were "privately financed" and then you think we only went to the moon once. Give us a reason why anything else you say should be taken seriously if you can't get basic facts right.

Comment: Re:Competition works better (Score 1) 230

For example, Columbus' Voyage was privately financed

And where do you think Queen Isabella got that money? She wasn't a tech billionaire. The funding came from the Spanish Royal Treasury. That means Spanish peasants paid for it and spoils of war paid for it and outright theft paid for it.

You think that solid gold throne Queen Elizabeth sits on when she's wearing her Imperial Crown that contains 2,868 diamonds, 273 pearls, 17 sapphires, 11 emeralds, and 5 rubies was paid for by the money that the House of Windsor made through honest labor?

danger is that the US government is going to interfere with private space exploration through ridiculous regulations and restrictions.

That US government you speak of derisively got us to the moon and back in fucking 1969. While the mighty private sector is barely replicating what the Mercury Program did over half a century ago. It appears John Galt is not only unoriginal, but he's kind of a fuck-up too.

Comment: Re: C is not what YOU think it means (Score 1) 206

by Pfhorrest (#49794555) Attached to: Ways To Travel Faster Than Light Without Violating Relativity

Other people have already said this, but they're buried in replies to replies so I'll say this up here where it's more noticeable:

The practical upshot that a human can get to anywhere in the universe within their lifetime given enough fuel to keep up acceleration is correct, but from no frame of reference will you appear to have travelled faster than a beam of light.

In your traveling frame of reference, it will appear that the distance you travelled got smaller. That's why you can reach places that seemed too distant to reach in your lifetime before: because they don't seem so distant once you're on your way there.

In the rest of the universe's frame of reference, it will appear that you aged more slowly. That's why you can reach places that seemed too distant to reach in your lifetime before: because your lifetime got prolonged once you were on your way there.

In either frame of reference, when you get where you're going, you will still find that a beam of light sent at the same moment you departed will have arrived at your destination before you, and thus in neither frame of reference did you outrun the light. You just either aged more slowly or travelled less distance, depending on whose frame of reference we're talking about.

In a photon's frame of reference, there is no distance between anything and no at all time elapses to travel it. Given enough fuel you can get arbitrarily close to that and so travel to arbitrary locations with arbitrarily little aging along the way, and so get anywhere in your lifetime. But light can always do that better than you still.

Comment: Re:Type C or mini B (Score 1) 82

by tlhIngan (#49794005) Attached to: Android M To Embrace USB Type-C and MIDI

As long as manufacturers do not start making Apple of themselves by having their own proprietary port, that's fine.

Rumor has it that the reason we have USB C is because of Apple. Basically Apple got fed up of the USB guys for having rather annoying connectors (especially ones that only go in one way - a royal PITA for mobile devices).

So rather than having yet another designed-by-committee connector, Apple basically gave it to the USB IF for free, with knowledge that it contains all the things Apple likes - like the ability to have A/V data sent through the connector, it fixes the nasty problem of well, having it only go one way, and it's symmetrical on both sides.

Probably Apple looked at what they did for USB 3.0 and decided it was fairly stupid, since now a USB 3.0 cable won't fit in anything other than USB 3 ports.

+ - Sourceforge staff takes over a user's account and wraps their software installer-> 8

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: Sourceforge staff took over the account of the GIMP-for-Windows maintainer claiming it was abandoned and used this opportunity to wrap the installer in crapware. Quoting Ars:

SourceForge, the code repository site owned by Slashdot Media, has apparently seized control of the account hosting GIMP for Windows on the service, according to e-mails and discussions amongst members of the GIMP community—locking out GIMP's lead Windows developer. And now anyone downloading the Windows version of the open source image editing tool from SourceForge gets the software wrapped in an installer replete with advertisements.

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:20-40% overblown (Score 1) 499

by Kjella (#49793129) Attached to: How Tesla Batteries Will Force Home Wiring To Go Low Voltage

That takes care of the first 20%... but what about the cheap AC->DC transformers that sit between your house wiring and your devices? I'd love to be able to switch each outlet I have between 110VAC/15a, 12VDC/3-5a and 9VDC/500Ma-2a, and do away with wall warts altogether.

Since you have different DC voltages you either need DC wall warts (not achieving anything), per outlet transformers (sounds expensive and turn the socket into a wall wart) or one circuit per outlet (sounds expensive and needs big conduits). And because of fire risk, property damage and whatnot you'll never get to use the same plug, tripling each outlet. Then you need something fancy to flip each socket at the source and what part of the socket is powered at the sink in a safe way, for every outlet. And I doubt 9VDC/500mW-2A matters much economically, if you want the aesthetics embed the wall wart in the wall, it'll probably be less hassle than the alternatives.

Heard that the next Space Shuttle is supposed to carry several Guernsey cows? It's gonna be the herd shot 'round the world.