Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:What a shame (Score 2) 549

I had to go to their web site to remind myself who they are. I think I've seen their logo before. It's been a long long time, and I can barely remember them. I guess things I search for with Google never turn up anything interesting or important for me either. Ok, I don't care if they do this: they're not important.

Comment different purposes (Score 1) 79

Look, the idea of a computerized hammer or screwdriver makes no sense for a home tool kit. But for a construction robot programmed to deliver X newtons of force and Y torque, it makes a ton of sense.

Most of this stuff isn't going to be useful for most people, but I am sure there are people that it will be actually helpful. For example, if you are in a wheel chair, I could see how wanting a remote control built into the wheel chair that controls lighting, heating, air conditioning, locks and unlocks your door, shows you what's in the fridge, etc. etc. etc.

And yes, it should control your TV/Cable/Netflix as well.

Comment Planned danger? (Score 1) 544

Instead of Planned Obsolesce, we now have planned danger where we intentionally create a dangerous situation in the hope that people will therefore drive slower?

If you want to make people drive slower, there are several effective methods that do not increase danger.

1) Large bumps in the road.

2) More and sharper turns in the road.

3) Jagged lines painted in the road.

4) Curb extensions/road narrowings.

5) Rumble strips

6) Traffic Islands

None of which make it physically harder to drive, they just make you pay attention.

Comment Pre-software roll back (Score 1) 69

What they do is put the ATM machine on wheels and push it really hard. This "rolles back the ATM" hard enough till the machine's back breaks open, where upon they steal all the cash.

Really people, don't use abbreviations, or ambiguous terms. No matter how 'cool' you think you are, there are less technical people out there that still want to know what you have to say. Using that kind of crap without explaining it doesn't make you see knowledgeable, it just makes you seem like a fool. Nor is it that hard to put an actual LINK in the article.

Comment Re:so what? (Score 1) 277

You're mixing up capability with likelihood. Total risk is the product of the two. The U.S. has had nuclear-capable ICBMs for over 50 years now, but has never used them. So while it has had the capability for a long time, the proven likelihood that it'll use them is very low, even when it's been provoked. The reason people (not just the U.S.) is concerned about North Korea's capability is because its leadership is extremely erratic and unpredictable, so the likelihood it would actually use ICBMs is a lot higher than existing nuclear powers'.

On the contrary, NK has had nuclear weapons for quite a while and has never used them beyond testing. As with any mutual-assured destruction weapon, showing a capability for something does not indicate anything about willingness to use them at any time except a doomsday scenario.

Depending on the success of this test, and certainly prior to this point, NK only had MAD capability against its immediate neighbors, China, South Korea, and Japan. The only deterrents they had against US invasion were indirect, through threats on US allies. A working ICBM gives them a better ability to deter the type of regime change we pulled in Iraq.

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.

Working...