Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

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:Landing vs splashdown (Score 1) 340

The quality of the paints and rust-proofing has improved immensely in the past 20 years or so. Back in the 70's in salt country it was common for 2-3 year old cars to have rust, and at 7-10 years cars were commonly scrapped due to major structural issues. Nowadays, it's rare to see any rust on a car less than 10 years old (unless it's a Mazda) and even for 15-20 year old cars the rust is still mostly cosmetic.

Comment: Re:No they can't ignore consumer protections (Score 1) 245

by toddestan (#49497179) Attached to: EU To Hit Google With Antitrust Charges

I'll say it again. In my mind Google search IS a NATURAL monopoly as there are no real competitors that produce similarly good results.

No they are not. A natural monopoly is a monopoly where it's most efficient for one company to exist, usually due to large infrastructure costs that would have to be duplicated by any competitors. The classic example is the electric company. Internet search doesn't fit into that, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Comment: Re:Wouldn't a re-write be more fruitful? (Score 1) 207

by toddestan (#49475245) Attached to: Linux Getting Extensive x86 Assembly Code Refresh

Because it's always cheaper and faster to kludge the next feature on to make the next shipment or put out the current fire than it is to rewrite. If they would take a step back, look at what they want to be in a year or two they'd realize that the time invested would pay for itself over and over. But most places don't have that kind of foresight, or the manpower to do that while also dealing with all/ the short-term crises arising from the current codebase.

Comment: Re:Hillary is much worse than Richard Nixon (Score 1) 676

by toddestan (#49467655) Attached to: Hillary Clinton Declares 2016 Democratic Presidential Bid

You think the Democrats are swooning over Hilary? The whole reason we have Obama now is because he was the most viable "not Hilary" candidate in 2008. Granted, in hindsight that didn't work out so well. But given Hilary's recent scandals and overall poor performance I don't see her doing much better this time around.

Comment: Re:Hell No Hillary (Score 1) 676

by toddestan (#49467581) Attached to: Hillary Clinton Declares 2016 Democratic Presidential Bid

Hell, this could be the election where it happens. If it ends up being Bush vs. Clinton, it's possible that enough people will throw their weight behind some of the other candidates out of pure disgust that they start to pick up some momentum, and if that means more people jump on board, it could snowball. That's basically what happened in Minnesota back in the 90's, resulting in Jesse Ventura being elected governor. While we're probably stuck with two parties, there's no reason it has to be the Democrats and Republicans, and it's about time a real alternative takes the Republican spot, turning the Republican party into the lunatic fringe third party it deserves to be.

Comment: Re:planet/planetoid (Score 1) 83

by toddestan (#49457417) Attached to: Collision With Earth's "Little Sister" Created the Moon

The problem is that their definition of a planet is terrible. For example, there is only eight planets in the entire Universe because, by their definition, a planet can only orbit "the Sun". Yes, with that capitalization, thus referring to our Sun. I would have hoped they would have come up with something a bit more generic that could be applied to other solar systems.

Comment: Re:Work training (Score 1) 442

The sad thing is that if the employee has been with the company five years, the employer would be a lot better off with investing and training an employee with all that valuable internal knowledge as opposed to starting with someone fresh. It's really odd how companies will place a lot of value on skills that can be learned fairly quickly, but place almost no value on the type of knowledge you're only going to get by working at a specific company for several years.

Comment: Re:Lies, bullshit, and more lies ... (Score 1) 442

Yeah, that's something I hate is how you end up becoming hyper-specialized in the eyes of employers if you don't aggressively changed jobs every few years (and that has its own problems). If you don't have the exact skill set they want, they won't even consider you, meanwhile they'll go and whine about how they can't find qualified candidates. It's like if a truck driver drove a Peterbilt truck for five years, and now finds that only companies that run Peterbilt trucks will consider hiring him, and all the companies that run Macks and Internationals won't even consider him. That's absurd, but seems to be the norm for STEM careers.

Comment: Re:don't need to look it up (Score 1) 53

by toddestan (#49451119) Attached to: Back To the Future: Autonomous Driving In 1995

I doubt it. I've played with GPS units from that era. They are slow compared to what you have now, taking several minutes to lock-on, and then you really only get coordinates and an altitude. The units now would blow a 486 away, but back then it's not like you'd be able to put something like a 486 in a handheld unit and expect it to work very long. Even so, the battery life was not terribly good anyway.

Interestingly, almost all units from then are paperweights now due to an absolute brilliant design decision where they used a 10-bit number to store the number of weeks since 1980, which rolled over sometime in 1999.

"Say yur prayers, yuh flea-pickin' varmint!" -- Yosemite Sam