Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Caught up to Chrome 20 from 2012 (Score 3, Informative) 122

by RoLi (#49378255) Attached to: Microsoft Rolls Out Project Spartan With New Windows 10 Build

As a Linux user I'm sometimes jealous of a browser that doesn't change every month.

Recently, Google announced that they would support IIRC the latest two versions of Chrome and Firefox for their services. The only browser they support for longer than a year is ... (drumroll) ... IE.

I was really getting my hopes up for the LTS version of Firefox, but they do everything they can to sabotage it (just try to find the LTS version on their website - it's impossible, you have to specifically search for it, they intentionally hid it and do not provide links to it).

Recently Chrome on my Android tablet changed (it now reloads the site when you scroll to far up). Gosh - I'm really starting to hate Google. And I already hate Firefox for their chicken-brained release schedule. And on Linux there is not really an alternative.

Somebody has to fork Firefox and offer a stable platform. The funny thing is that they would not really have to do a lot - just fork it and maintain it.

Until about 2 years ago I was still using Firefox 2 (yes, two) and I didn't have any problems until Google decided to "drop support" (= intentionally break) Google Translate.

Browsers were "good enough" 7 years ago. Firefox was great except for memory consumption and instability. Today, Firefox is adequate (no longer great, they messed up the UI too much for that) except for memory consumption and instability. So all the real issues of Firefox were ignored while we got "features" we don't need.

Comment: Re:Can't wait... (Score 0) 737

by RoLi (#49346247) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

Well, he was gay so you can bet your last t-shirt that the media will drop the story pretty soon. (Can't say anything bad about them, even though both murder and suicide are pretty common in that community. It would lead to "prejudice", you know...)

See, you can have a media cover-up without a conspiracy, just wait a few days after the news-cycle has turned.

Comment: Re:The 3d printed elephant in the room (Score 2) 52

by plover (#49332311) Attached to: Australian Company Creates Even Faster 3D Printer

If you have a business use for what they can print today, you already have one, and are likely contemplating buying a better one. If you have a personal use for the parts they can print, you probably already own one. And even if you don't have a real use for them, you may have one as a cool toy. But not everyone is going to buy the same toys as you.

Once they get a lot more capable (maybe not Star Trek replicator capable, but substantially better than they are now) then they'll become ubiquitous. Until then, not everyone needs one. I'm thanking you now for being an early adopter, but don't expect me to join you yet.

Comment: Re: The real reason (Score 5, Informative) 52

by plover (#49332271) Attached to: Australian Company Creates Even Faster 3D Printer

The problem is they're too limited. They have to get more capable, not faster, in order to meet my needs. If they can insert circuitry, maybe I can print things that are somewhat more useful. As of right now, I have needed exactly one 3D printed thing (a battery holder for an electronic project, which a friend provided gratis.) But at no point in the last five years have my needs for small plastic things added up to the $300 price of a Simplebot, let alone a printer with better quality, resolution, size, or capabilities.

Maybe you have kids who need thousands of plastic army men. Maybe you are in a business where fabricating prototypes is valuable to you. Great for you, I'm glad you have a use for one. Hopefully you'll help drive volume so the costs come down even further. But as they stand today, they're too expensive for anything I need, and would take up more storage space than I want to waste on a toy.

It has nothing to do with thinking big or small. I'm sorry you can't imagine a scenario different from your own experience.

Comment: Re:Fake road signs... (Score 1) 283

by plover (#49332141) Attached to: Ford's New Car Tech Prevents You From Accidentally Speeding

How much havok will a 10 mph sign cause on the highway?

None at all. Drivers aren't that stupid, and still maintain enough control over their car to react appropriately.

You, however, might be so stupid that you'd slam on your own brakes to 10 MPH just to make another idiotic point, at which point you get rear-ended by an 18-wheeler who is unlucky enough to be following you. Fortunately, there is only one you, so the gene pool will be thinned out to the point where this situation won't repeat.

Comment: Re:Cruise Control 2.0? (Score 1) 283

by plover (#49331883) Attached to: Ford's New Car Tech Prevents You From Accidentally Speeding

The system would be really awesome if could also maintain the proper distance from the car ahead of you.

Ford has had that for years now. It's called 'Adaptive Cruise Control', and uses radar to maintain a preset minimum following distance.

I have it on my 2011 Ford, and while it's nice, it can only be set to following distance, not time. I want to set it for a two second gap, but my choices are 22, 44, or 66 yards. It's too close for high speeds, but too long for low speeds.

Comment: Re:it always amazes me (Score 0) 341

by plover (#49331827) Attached to: Feds Attempt To Censor Parts of a New Book About the Hydrogen Bomb

Devil's Advocate here, but maybe the reason is that all kinds of data is out in public, and some of it is likely flawed. Maybe there's a paper that theorized that you could set a Dewar's flask of liquid hydrogen next to an A-bomb to get an H-bomb. But Dr. Broad is a respected authority, and if he says "we did it this way" without mentioning the Dewar's flask idea, a rogue state would know what not to try.

Remember, these guys get about one shot to get their test explosion right, because in about an hour after a successful test of an H-bomb by anyone the US considers a threat the USAF is going to be raining actual working H-bombs on their entire nuclear program, with a few diverted to cover the presidential palace, the parliament, and essentially every researcher and civilian within a 20-km radius of the aforementioned targets. The US will not tolerate a new state of MAD with a new non-Western-approved government.

Be sociable. Speak to the person next to you in the unemployment line tomorrow.

Working...