Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: The future's still a long ways off (Score 2) 208

by shadowrat (#49630449) Attached to: Self-Driving Big Rigs Become a Reality
You'd think if autonomous vehicles could be 100% solved on any platform, it would be trains. You don't have to worry about steering to maintain the course. You only have one variable to adjust, your speed. In fact, automated trains are found all over. They have been around since the 60s. Yet we still live in a world where people drive trains!

Good luck getting those automated semi trucks out there.

Comment: Re:Ten seconds? (Score 1) 591

for some reason this isn't written up a lot. most information about how your lungs work imply that they are taking just oxygen out of the air you breathe. My understanding is your blood will just soak up nitrogen to match the content in the air you are breathing. it's why scuba divers get the bends, and i guess, if you breathe a 100% nitrogen mixture, your blood basically gives up all oxygen to match the nitrogen ratio.

Comment: not good enough (Score 1) 700

by shadowrat (#49478573) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

Singling out just one group because it gets the most publicity isn't good enough, and i don't think it would set a good precedent. signing petitions just to target one individual [organization] is little better than a lynch mob.

Instead, we should have a real discussion in this country about tax free status of all religions. In my opinion, none of them deserve it. They are all businesses bringing in money. They should participate in the system just like we expect Apple or Walmart to. Plenty of deductions and loopholes exist for charitable acts. I'm sure if an organization is leveraging those provisions, we would all be fine with them paying less taxes.

Comment: Re:the superbowl of stupidity (Score 1) 290

I remember the experience of seeing the first iphones. At the time a lot of people, myself included, said, "it's not capable of anything my current phone doesn't already do"

we had to eat those words. the device clearly was far better at stuff. it was too expensive, but clearly had a wonderous display and interface.

when the ipad came around, i felt like i had to at least acknowledge that even though i had a phone, the big interface was kind of a novel experience. those previous devices always left me feeling like, "omg! i could make use of that."

This thing just doesn't have that. it feels like ios was forced onto something just to prove it could be done rather than because it works well. It's a piece of ios jewelry. There's nothing really wrong with that though.

Comment: Re:A few positive points about Apple's watch .... (Score 1) 290

Apple should hire you! you just laid out far more compelling information than I received in the apple store. Their strategy is basically to say, "oooo! watch!" with an, "*iphone 5 or greater required"

i'm not a hater. i'm firmly in the camp of: if someone thinks it's going to be so convenient to keep their phone in their pocket and only look at their wrist, they are a fool, but if someone says they spent $400 because they thought it looks nice, who am I to argue with that. Honestly, you just made me reevaluate the usefulness of it. It might be kind of cool.

Comment: Re:the superbowl of stupidity (Score 3, Interesting) 290

I played with the watch over the weekend. I was suprised by how lackluster the experience was. Navigating the interface is surprisingly tedious, and I found myself lost on some screens with no clear idea of how to get out of them. The screen looks good, but it's so tiny. I doubt that it's useful. The maps app can show you that you are on a street, but you will spend so much time squinting and fiddling that i'm certain you just wasted all the time you saved not pulling your phone out from your pocket.

I did think it looked pretty good though. The previous smartwatches i've seen like the early samsungs and the pebbles look like clunky plastic crap. I'd go so far as saying that apple's could be fashionable. That's not entirely a use case without merit. If someone said their reason for blowing $400 on the watch was because they thought it was fashionable, i'd have a lot more respect for them than if they made up stories about how useful it was.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 1) 290

As long as we're just fantasizing, I can imagine some killer usecases. The problem is the device would need to be extremely waterproof and capable of operating without a phone to be useful. I like sailing and surfing. It would be great to have a concise tide table app, and something to track the starting horns in racing. if i could get a text message from my wife out in the waves, that would be cool. Heck, tides and start timing don't even need connectivity. if the thing was just super waterproof and i felt like I could take it surfing, i'd probably be on board.

currently my $12 casio watch gives me a stopwatch and tide information. it's good enough, but i would certainly spend the $400 on something that was more than just a glorified phone remote.

Comment: Re:Very simple answer (Score 5, Funny) 394

by shadowrat (#49393303) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Living Without Social Media In 2015?

Whenever someone asks why you don't have a social media account, all you need to tell them is:

I'm not a narcissist.

You don't believe your life is anyone else's business, no need to show them pictures of your latest adventure, no need for gratification from the unwashed masses. You are who you are.

ah yes. It's a classic page right out of "how to win friends and influence people". Impress them with your smug sense of superiority!

Weekend, where are you?