Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:A HUD is usefull... (Score 1) 357

It is very upsetting to see so many automakers build processing into the car, like satnav and fancy touchscreen audio. That becomes obsolete much more quickly than the mechanicals. But unlike the planned obsolescence from 50 years ago where a rusted out death trap with a leaky engine gasket isn't worth the money to fix, people can still use a car for it's primary purpose (transportation) well after the in-dash MySpace integration is obsolete.

But I think there is a place for automaker innovation beyond merely mechanical tech. I don't think that a HUD is a bad idea, since even though it may only save .01 seconds when looking down at the speed, at the margin I'm sure it's a little bit safer, and maybe a little bit more entertaining, and therefore at a cheap enough price it makes sense. For in-car entertainment, they should figure out how to make better tactile UI, which barring a great advancement on haptic technology, means physical steering wheel controls that are probably the same buttons on the lock screen of your smartphone. But touchscreens aren't safe because you have to take your eyes off the road, and touchscreen interfaces designed by automakers are really unsafe because you have to take your eyes off the road for a long time to figure out how the heck to make the audio system do what you want it to do.

Comment Re:Actually great UX for everyone else (Score 1) 246

So I assume you clip coupons, right? For $3 you can pick up the Sunday paper, peruse the advertisements, and work all morning so you can save (typically) $5-15. And of course you dig through the store leaflets to decide which store you go to based on where the sales are. That's good for another $5 or so. This only takes a little bit of time and over the course of the year will save hundreds of dollars.

There was a time in my life when I did that to save every little penny. Now I am in a totally different income quartile and I would gladly spend hundreds of dollars per year to spend a couple more hours with my family, or going to the gym, or even catching up on some reading. I am making mature, rational choices as to where I want to spend my money versus my time. You are free to make different decisions, but everybody spends money on something that someone else would think is a "waste".

Comment Re:Actually great UX for everyone else (Score 2) 246

Exactly. If you want the cheapest price on something, cut coupons and brave the crowds at the local Walmart. The dash button is about convenience. For people who have all the time in the world, then it makes sense to go out to the store whenever you discover you are out of something. For people who only have time on the weekends, it makes sense to make a shopping list and inventory the consumable products in your home and stock up as needed. But if you have other things that you want to do on the weekend, then anything that reduces the amount of time making a list and walking the aisles at the store is a big plus, and definitely worth the extra $1.50 to use the dash button.

Comment Re:We already have a great tool (Score 1) 127

I think it's a play on this meme. Like, I heard you like power plants (e.g. a coal firing electricity factory) so I put some powerful plants (e.g. CO2 absorbing members of kingdom Plantae) in your power plant (e.g. coal firing electricity factory) so you can power (verb) your plant (noun) while you plant (verb) plants (noun).

Comment Re:Well-regulated militia (Score 1) 682

I don't understand your logic. If slavery "used to be" constitutional, and isn't now, then doesn't that help to support an argument that the constitution is perfect just as it is? If slavery "still is" constitutional, then that would be a knock against it, but to fault something today for what it used to be doesn't make sense. It's like saying that butterflies are ugly because they are fat, have a lot of legs, and can't fly.

Comment Re:And all they wanted was a faster horse (Score 1) 731

If you are saying that ground installations are the greatest threat to future air operations then it logically follows that prioritizing against that threat even if it means giving short shrift to a modern jet's dogfighting capabilities is the right thing to do. And I wholeheartedly agree.

Comment Re:And all they wanted was a faster horse (Score 1) 731

War is all about telling your enemy what they can and can't do. Gunpowder said "Your suit of armor is worthless now." The rifled barrel said "Don't get so close to me." Machine guns and artillery said "I will slaughter your entire regiment if you charge my position."

You are correct that the opponent doesn't have to listen, but if you have the technology to back it up, then that will be very costly for them. So the outstanding question is whether technology has made the tactic of getting within cannon range and outmaneuvering an opponent a costly one or not. Clearly AAM tech circa 1960 was not enough. But modern missile tech? Plus stealth? I dunno. I think the F35 project in particular has been a disaster, but the idea that a squadron of 5th gen jets can use stealth and precision strike capabilities to destroy large numbers of 4th gen jets while they are still on the ground, or destroy enough CnC capabilities as to make a coordinated response impossible, seems pretty sound to me.

Comment Re:And all they wanted was a faster horse (Score 1) 731

You argue in half your comments that current gen planes need to be ready for dogfighting. But then here you fault someone for wanting to fight the last war. Why is a strike aircraft doing bombing missions a part of past wars, but not future wars, while dogfighting is a part of both past and future wars?

While everybody knows the story of how a cannon for dogfighting was added to the F4 because they predicted incorrectly about dogfighting, just as pertinent here is how a the F15E strike eagle was developed because it's a shame not to be able to destroy ground targets on a very competent weapons platform. So making a fighter with limited dogfighting capabilities but reasonable bombing capabilities seems to be exactly the opposite of "fighting the last war." Rather, they are trying to build a weapons system for the next conflict as they currently envision it. You can agree or disagree with their vision of future conflict, but it's not fair to say they aren't even trying.

Comment Re:To be fair (Score 2) 731

what if the Germans had five more years of time to refine many of their (then) far-out ideas?

All what-ifs about WWII are ended by the fact that the only safe place for most of the world's greatest physicists was in the US just as humanity was on the verge of inventing the only superweapon of the war that matters. A world where the Germans do not surrender is a world without cities in the area formerly known as Germany.

Comment Re:So.... (Score 1) 222

I'm not proposing absolute author control either. Remixes have a place, and maybe non-commercial, non-political redistribution rights should be forced to be given under fairly liberal terms.

But here you have a case of a guy who took some video, and then some large media companies come along and make money off from it without even original source attribution. Don't you think he should have some sort of recourse to say, "hey you can't do that!"? Without some kind of copyright, how would someone know which is the certified original and which is the fork? After all, I'm sure CNN could just copy whatever certification that "this is the original" that goes along with the CNN version (see: all DRM is broken)

Back to my original point, isn't there a middle ground between, "CNN can rip off anybody they can steal video from?" and "Any level of copyright prevents us from standing on the shoulders of giants"?

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?