Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:How does that compare to desktops? (Score 1) 179 179

The joke is that cars have optimistic speedometers to make owners feel like they are faster, and they give up usability for "My speedometer goes up to 11".

I just like being snarky. I get the idea. I far prefer a big center-mounted analog tach with a digital speedo off to the left, as I've said elsewhere in this thread. Everything else can be sprinkled about as necessary. I did actually use the oil pressure gauge in the Mercedes today, though... I really need a new wastegate diaphragm.

Comment: Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive (Score 1) 302 302

So you think criminals should be able to drive people around? Sorry many don't agree.

It doesn't matter what they agree with, I know two women who have been raped by licensed taxi drivers, taxi licenses don't prevent crime, stop repeating that idiocy.

Most taxi inspections are based on months between inspections. It is very easy to see a sticker and ensure that the taxi has been properly inspected. It is very difficult to do that based on mileage.

No, no it isn't. Put a date and a number of miles on the sticker.

Professional licenses have a higher standard than standard licenses. They also require the training to do a proper daily pre-trip inspection.

The amazingly shitty experiences I've had in amazingly shitty taxis disagree

Comment: Re:If you can't keep your eyes on the ROAD (Score 1) 179 179

I rely on my night vision to spot animals and people at the side of the road. It doesn't matter how good my headlights are (as long as they are legal), they will not help me do that.

Of course they will. Headlights are meant to spread light to the sides. Any decent ones will do that. Even the Hella H4 sealed beam replacements have lenses that do that. Just make sure you get the right ones for which side you drive on...

Comment: Re: Above Congress? (Score 2) 49 49

not sure if serious ... CIA people have been in the Whitehouse since 1980, out in the open (it's debatable before then). They spy on Congress, have their own secret kangaroo courts, and carry out overseas executions all admittedly. One could suppose that there's nothing worse behind closed doors but that would be generous towards spies. Who doesn't really think they're blackmailing anybody in Congress or other high elected office?

Politics remains the entertainment arm of the military-industrial complex. After all, people would be mildly non-plussed to learn that they were secretly ruled by spooks and banksters.

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 578 578

The only intel that is usually received is that some high value target was going to be there.

That's not sufficient intel for a super power to drop a bomb on someone then; especially someone who really poses no real tangible threat.

Mistakes are made and perhaps too often.

Made too often, and admitted too rarely. Mistakes are usually rationalized. In this very thread we have an appeal to Sun Tzu and an argument that we must attack them where they are weak and that its entirely justified to bomb civilian weddings... somehow.

because their physical bravery is put to the use of evil.

Few conflicts should be framed in terms of 'good' and 'evil'. They have many very legitimate grievances; and they have committed many terrible actions. Same applies to us.

In any case framing them as 'evil' in a thread about us drone striking weddings comes across as pretty oblivious.

You can't call a drone pilot a physical coward in the same way.

I don't. I call the US government cowardly. The people setting the policy and calling the shots. Not the people literally taking them. I don't think drone pilots are cowards, or unnecessary.

But I do think strikes against civilian targets in foreign countries without a declaration of war ... well...
I'm sure you can imagine what we'd call drone strikes against American soldiers attending weddings perpetrated by North Korea...

Comment: Re:Was Safari ever a force in the browser market? (Score 1) 129 129

It was pretty popular if your demographic was younger people, design people, or startups/small scale companies that aren't tied to Windows stuff (a lot of HR or sales software are).

If you were in those demos, you could easily get a 20-30% market share.

Had to be careful when taking the metrics though. Safari's splash page showing most popular sizes would render thumbnails by running all javascripts, with only an http header that can only be inspected server side to differentiate it (so pages on CDNs need not apply if using a hosted tracking suite like Omniture or Google Analytics). That would make Safari look like it had 50-60% market share on a bad day and confuse people like crazy.

Still it has a decent share, enough that you need to support it.

Comment: Re:A lot of the online gambling industry is locate (Score 1) 42 42

Surely the proposal will be scuttled when the realize that driving the gambling operations out of the province will sharply reduce the number of them that give due prominence to French language text; and acknowledge the right of the people to lose money without brutalizing exposure to anglicisms.

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 578 578

Nobody is trying to kill people at weddings. In fact, most of those scenarios would not have happened if there was intelligence it *was* a wedding. The only intel that is usually received is that some high value target was going to be there.

Mistakes are made and perhaps too often. And that *is* a reason to reconsider the drone program. However, that's because it may become counterproductive to defeating the terrorists, not because it is "cowardly".

A terrorist might actually be what used to be called "physically brave" in that they are willing to die or take harm for their cause without flinching. That's important, but they tend to be what is called "moral cowards", because their physical bravery is put to the use of evil.

You can't call a drone pilot a physical coward in the same way. The drone is their weapon. Would you send lightly armored archers into a press of armored cavalry? Hell no. They'd get smashed and do no good. Their weapons are arrows and being light and maneuverable. They're not going to run at and hit knights over the head with their wooden bows or something. They'd get slaughtered.

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 578 578

If that's true, why aren't the inventors (or IP creators) of these weapons not rulers of countries or at least receive a sizable royalties from the spoils of war? Don't these weapons win wars? Why do administrator type politicians and capitalist businessmen divvy up lion's share of a country's output and war profit, leaving only scraps for others?

Wait... Are you saying that people who make weapons don't get paid a lot of money for their weapons? Because they do actually make a lot of money.

Do they get to rule the whole country? Not as such, but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. I think the point being made is that it is silly and counterproductive to be afraid to win a fight with a superior weapon just because the loser might call you a "coward". This is war, not a sporting contest. If you're not fighting a war to win it as quickly as possible, you're doing it wrong. Not to mention that you're condemning more people to more pain over a longer period of time just so you can be called "brave".

Weapons are not of more importance than the soldier wielding them, but they do ensure that an otherwise evenly matched fight has a winner which is the person with the better weapon. Since that is the difference between victory and defeat, weapons are critical, albeit not in the absence of a controlling human.

Comment: Re:Altough I agree (Score 1) 56 56

My favorite feature is Birds Eye view, which uses aerial photos rather than satellite photos. Sometimes that can get you better info from that, since they usually have 4 different perspectives you can rotate through, and they are much closer and more detailed.

That was true, but Google was pretty quick to copy it. They now seem to have incorporated it into their 3D view as well, which makes panning somewhat better (and more importantly hides the worst defects in the 3D view by limiting the projection to a POV very similar to where the texture map image was taken from).

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 578 578

Well there is nothing conspiracy theorist involved in noting that China is working towards parity with the US, and are building fortifications in places like the Spratly Islands.

China definitely could become a threat, especially in their own region, even without matching the US pound for pound.

On the other hand, China having nuclear weapons for years means that a major war with them is still difficult to envision. It could happen, of course, but major wars between nuclear powers are very dangerous and leaders know that.

China's increasing power could allow them to form a bloc, and the bigger danger from that is a resurgence of proxy wars like the Cold War had.

Mirrors should reflect a little before throwing back images. -- Jean Cocteau