Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Really? (Score 1) 283 283

I can expect that firing straight up into the air, my shot will only reach about 30 meters (or yards). Maybe 40.

Umm, no. Your shot will reach considerably higher than 30 feet straight up.

Muzzle speed from a 12ga is on the order of 1500 fps (call it 450m/s for the metric types). For it to have a ceiling of 30 feet (10 meters) straight up, the shot would have to be decelerating at ~50G's.

And that isn't happening unless you're shooting through a wall/ceiling.

Note that the problem with taking things out when shooting straight up is that human's are really pretty crappy at judging distance directly overhead. Which makes judging the lead you give the target pretty much guesswork...

User Journal

Journal Journal: Yesterday's Tomorrow is now available!

It turned into a beautiful thing. It's full of illustrations, plus photos of the authors and covers of the magazines the stories were printed in. It has the first use of the word "astronaut", the cover story of the issue of Astounding that is said to have ushered in the "golden age of science fiction, A.E. van Vogt's first published science fiction, a few other firsts, and five stories that are printed from cleaned up scans of the magazines. There are biographies of all the writers in the boo

Comment Re:Local CO2 (Score 1) 64 64

The sentence in the summary is a bit ambiguous certainly. CO2 is measured as an aspect of air quality in a specific location, not because it is a pollutant in itself. Or if you like, a sound is not necessarily noise, but put a lot of sounds together and you get noise pollution.

Nice try, but no. You're comparing the feel of apples to the smell of oranges.

In anything like a real-world outdoor scenario (see the other post on this page about Mexico City), CO2 levels aren't going to vary enough to have much of an affect on anything locally.

So lumping it together with "pollutants" that do makes no sense at all.

Comment Re:Local CO2 (Score 2) 64 64

It is no more political reason then it would be political to measure the amount of rain that is falling.

Utter nonsense. Even if you assume that CO2 is a "pollutant" (and that's a pretty huge assumption not backed by actual science), it wouldn't have any effect locally unless large areas were covered with hundreds of thousands of PPM. And then it would be easy to tell, because -- the only serious local effect possible -- people and animals would be keeling over en masse.

Rain, on the other hand, has immediate and very local effects.

And as for

pouring into the atmosphere at a rate of more than 100x what nature produces

... man, go back to elementary school. That hasn't happened, isn't happening, and isn't going to happen.

Comment Re:Not sure I understand.... (Score 1) 170 170

If you argue that something is useless or inferior to an alternative, then you need to prove that it is that for everybody, not just for some people.

No I don't. I don't have to prove anything in this discussion, because I'm posting on an Internet message board and voicing my opinion. When I'm trying to get published in scientific journals, or if I'm on trial for something, those are the times I need to prove something.

And in this case, I'm not even arguing that nobody should buy an XBox. I don't care what people do, and if the XBox is, for whatever reason, more convenient, by all means go buy one. I don't care very much what some random asshole on the Internet buys. You could go buy yourself an XBox for every room of the house, and hey, it's your money, you can do that. I'm still aloud to post on the Internet that it seems excessive and stupid.

As far as whether streaming PC games to your XBox is a good idea, my guess is that the experience won't be great for twitch games, but if it's a good enough experience for you, then again, by all means, have at it. I'm not going to be an asshole and claim that you have to prove that's the best choice for everybody.

At the same time, if what you really want is a method to stream your Steam games to your TV over your home network through a set-top box, I would guess that there are cheaper solutions than the XBox. You don't even need something with much 3D rendering performance to stream video.

Comment Re:Not sure I understand.... (Score 1) 170 170

Let me do the same: No, it wouldn't.

Yes, it would. Gee, this is fun. Now your turn.

There are plenty of massively powered existing PCs not hooked up to the living room TV

And there are plenty that are. And there are plenty of people who don't hook it up to the TV because they don't want to. And there are plenty of people who buy more than one computer, understanding that it's "redundant hardware", because that's what they want to do. In fact, that's what you're doing if you buy an XBox when you already have a good gaming PC anyway.

And why are you getting butthurt because I don't want to buy an XBox?

suppose you have some awesome ... gaming PC, do not want to put it in the living room, want to use [it] ... in to your living room. How do you propose solving this conundrum in the easiest and cheapest manner?

Well the easiest and cheapest option is to quit being such a particular whiny bitch, and either play games in the game room or move your gaming rig to the living room. That's easy and cheap. It doesn't give you every little thing your heart desires, but it sure keeps things simple. All of the other solutions are going to have some trade-off between "cheap and easy" and "works well".

Comment Re:What a... (Score 1) 75 75

fantastically sensible system.

You mispelled "stupid".

Note that if the prosecutors don't have enough evidence to convict (their reason for overturning the first Grand Jury decision), all that's going to happen is a show-trial followed by an acquittal. It'll waste some time, some money (for both the hypothetical villains and the government), and otherwise do nothing meaningful.

Or are we expecting them to start fabricating evidence, just to ensure a conviction?

Comment Re:quickly to be followed by self-driving cars (Score 1) 870 870

I'm sure that's partly true, but I would bet it's more due to the fact that cars last longer than they used to.


When I was a kid (40 years ago or so), my dad would replace the car every three or four years, after it got to about 75K miles. Car I'm driving now is north of 130K, and still going strong. I'm expecting it to hit 200K before I have to even think hard about replacing it....

Comment Re:Truck Stops, Gas Stations, etc (Score 1) 870 870

They can recharge when they load, when the driver stops for breaks, overnight at truck stops, and when the truck is being unloaded.

Current charge times make "recharge when the driver stops for breaks" impossible.

And frankly, current ranges on EV's make them pretty much useless for trucks. Who really wants to stop for a couple hours a couple times a day?

Comment Re:Not sure I understand.... (Score 1) 170 170

Buying an XBox would still be redundant hardware, for the most part (excluding exclusive games). Also, at least for me, my office computer and my gaming PC aren't really redundant. For my office/productivity use, I'm content with an older computer with an integrated graphics chipset. It's not a gaming PC, but it's fast enough to open web pages.

Comment Not sure I understand.... (Score 4, Insightful) 170 170

I'm not sure I understand why this would make steam machines useless. The main value of a steam machine, as I see it, is that it allows you to have the convenience of a console in what is essentially a generic gaming PC. That is, it has a controller and a GUI aimed at connecting it to a TV and not using a keyboard or mouse, but it's not a locked-down console. It's just generic hardware that will play all of your PC games, and those games don't become obsolete and unplayable when you upgrade to the next generation.

The article says:

if you can use your Xbox One to play your PC on your TV, then your Xbox One can use Steam and effectively become a Steam Machine.

So what they're saying is, if you have a PC running Steam (which is really all a "Steam Machine" is) and an XBox One, then it's kind of the same as having a Steam Machine. Yes, it is... because you're starting with the scenario where you have a Steam machine. It's like saying, "There's no reason to buy a car, since if I already own a car and I buy a bicycle, it's like owning a car!"

Look, you shouldn't assume that I want an XBox. I can get a PC with better graphics and avoid being locked into Microsoft's ecosystem. I can install game mods, my games don't all go unnecessarily obsolete with every new generation of PC, Steam often has very good sales, Steam doesn't make me pay a monthly subscription for online services, and I can use that PC for other things if I like. To me, the only thing that would want me to buy a console at this point is if there were an exclusive game that I really wanted to play, and I've found that I can live without it. I don't want an XBox, so it doesn't make sense to me to say, "If you buy a Steam machine and an XBox, then it's like having a Steam machine!" I'll just buy a Steam machine, thank you, even if it's not a branded "Steam Machine".

Comment Re: Well, sure, but... (Score 2) 292 292

we'll never know the truth about the long-term health effects of eating GMO foods until if and when a pattern emerges.

It should, perhaps, be noted that if we were to keep the stuff in the lab until we'd tested it thoroughly for 1000 years, we STILL would "never know the truth about the long-term health effects of eating GMO foods until if and when a pattern emerges".

Or anything else, either. Patterns are what we use to decide that something is real or imaginary.

"If a computer can't directly address all the RAM you can use, it's just a toy." -- anonymous comp.sys.amiga posting, non-sequitir