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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The technical problems with this are immense. (Score 1) 338

Thanks, I was crunching the numbers in my head, and I was heading to the same conclusion you detailed.

That said, I think batteries become viable, if not today, maybe soon:

[...] a research team at the University of Tokyo School of Engineering has announced a new lithium ion battery [...] energy density â" at 2,570 watt-hours per kilogram [...]


This is a couple years old...but its clear the tech is moving forward.

Obviously stability/reliability, production scalability, and cost are all obstacles. But 2570 w-h/kg is almost 10MJ/kg which changes the viability substantially.

Your point about jet fuel expenditure being front loaded on the trip ... I read somewhere that the most fuel efficient flight for a jet is around 4300 miles. It seems that an alternate fuel for short hops could make sense.

Fossil fuels are great, and there's no reason to stop using them anytime soon; I am not anti fossil fuels.

But unless we find a way of producing it cheaply we do need to move on eventually. Growing crops to turn into fuel, it amounts to an *extremely* inefficient solar solution (months of solar collected in the form of plant biomass) which then has to be processed into fuel... better perhaps to take those fields grow food in them, and throw up panels in the deserts to charge batteries.

As for your comments about the charging issues, I imagine a battery swap solution being viable for fleets of aircraft.

Comment Re:The technical problems with this are immense. (Score 1) 338

For a typical airplane, though, increasing the weight of the energy source by 10x guarantees that it will never leave the ground: at take-off the jet fuel powered version is already 25-60% fuel by mass; increasing this by 10x would increase the total mass of the plane by 3-6x.

Does hold that true even for short hops? Paris to Madrid? London to Frankfurt? LA to Vegas? Sydney to Melbourne?

Sure a plane with an 8000 NM range is 50%+ fuel by weight... but most european continental flights are under 500 miles.

Comment Re:I'm impressed (Score 1) 235

No. They already know 11 months in advance, that they will do a bug-fix fix only release a week before the christmas/new years holiday season; when everyone takes off for a few weeks.

They will not release anything major that release.
And they will make it a short cycle (5 weeks) because by the next week, the 20th of December, people will already be taking off.

Comment Re:The technical problems with this are immense. (Score 1) 338

Well, cars stay on the ground. Weight isn't nearly as big of a deal for cars as it is for planes.

Fuel / energy to weight ratio defines the range in a car as much as a plane.

And yes, a fully loaded trans-pacific jet is half fuel by weight, so a less dense energy storage becomes a big issue, the jet would weight 20x as much if it were battery powered... and that's before counting the energy need to move those batteries so those batteries would themselves need more batteries because of the weight they added... so it just doesn't work.

But what percentage of the weight is fuel from LA to Vegas or LA to Palm Springs? Maybe it does work.

Comment Re:The technical problems with this are immense. (Score 1) 338

You can recharge/refuel more frequently with an electric car. A bit hard to land and recharge in the middle of the Atlantic ocean

Lots of flights are between New York and Chicago, LA and Las Vegas, Miami and New York, Seattle and LA... their is no necessity that that electrics have to do trans-pacific runs before we can start using them.

o you need a lot more fuel proportionally, so its efficiency matters more for planes.

I can see that it matters more. I'm not sure its nearly as far away as you suggest. Even if a plane needs some a lot of extra weight in batteries than it would in fuel, if its cheaper to recharge / swap batteries than buy jet fuel then it becomes practical.

Especially for short hops. For example, LA to Vegas.

Comment Re:A Huge Impending Force (Score 1) 88

For example, a restaurant owner is known to be rude and cruel to his employees.

And if the threshold of proving that, is "some guy said it on facebook" or "some 20 second clip posted to youtube" well, this sort of vigilantism will never miss its target and destroy a completely innocent person.

United social power can be a real scum squasher.

Yes, mobs are well known for their rational considered responses to situations. Wait...

Comment Re:Surprised? (Score 2) 565

So what?

He said he turned off all options that appeared. e.g. he did what a human being without specialized knowledge of Windows group policy would have done.

Precisely. And the article summary that got posted to slashdot, what does THAT say? That even with all telemetry turned off that windows 10 was phoning home left and right. That's not even slightly accurate, is it? And that's not acceptable either.

He left windows update running on a fresh install, and a shit pile of network activity happened as he monitored the next 8 hours after a fresh install.

Holy crap... call the papers! Lets collectively lose our shit!

Why is this acceptable?

Its not acceptable. Windows should give users more control. But that's not the point.

The point is that this isn't a list of 90+ ip addresses that were "surreptitiously contacted" after all telemetry was turned off. Telemetry wasn't turned off. Windows updates wasn't turned off. The internet connectivity check was running, the internet time sync was running, etc...

This is as ridiculous as cataloging all the bacteria on your body after taking a shower, and then losing your shit that the shower utterly failed to get you clean. The shower did what it was supposed to do; it's not defective. And half the bacteria that you cataloged was gut bacteria that should be there. And you didn't separate any of that out.

Comment Re:Surprised? (Score 2) 565

Read the article, temetry wasn't disabled.

If I read the actual article correctly, it was just a Vanilla install of Windows 10 enterprise. There was no active attempt to disable or block any of the actual telemetry features at all. He did go through the customized install and turned off the 'cloud/personalization/sync options there', but that's it.

The actual telemetry features would still have been on.

Not to mention all the usual windows features that phone home:

Everything from windows update, to time sync, to the regular ping it does to see if you have internet connectivity would have still been on.

I'm guessing all the live tiles in his start menu were still on too, so they'd have been pulling ads and updates, etc.

Seriously... it's an interesting exercise and an interesting article about what one's computer is doing. But it doesn't show what anybody here is really concluding.

Comment Re:Add-ons? (Score 1) 408

But this goes in circles...

They make the version with the bricked up windows and remote locks. They make a version without. You can use either version.

But that doesn't satisfy; you want to use the version with the bricked up windows and remote locks, but now you demand to have them build a back door for you to use.

And then they say... that back door reduces the security for anyone who uses the product. It increases the attack surface of the product.

And then you say, but any one who opens the backdoor needs a level of access that would also allow them to drive a bulldozer through the brick windows. So give me a back door.

And then they say... sure, your right, if they have that much access they can drive a bulldozer through the windows... but that still doesn't mean it makes sense to increase the attack surface.

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 348

Declaring they won't so much as fart in our direction seems pretty close to saying NONE of them would rejoin the fight. Almost certainly not 30% of them.

I read it, and meant is as a 50/50 shot. Half never lift a finger against us, and we lose track of half them as they disappear into the Pakistan mountains and rejoin the Taliban, or al Quaida, or whatever group they originated with.

With the implication that even those we lose track of that do rejoin the Taliban or alQuaida or whatever will not pose a threat to the US. Because if they ever did anything even slightly high profile we'd see them, because we're on the watch for them. So they can go train militia or carry supplies around in the mountains somewhere in Pakistan, and that's fine. It may be 'against us' but its not and never will be a real threat to the USA.

You make the argument that if they aren't an existential threat then they aren't any threat at all what so ever and should be released unconditionally. That is ridiculous.

Let me try to explain.

The unconditional release stems from US taking prisoners and then categorizing them ON PURPOSE to put them into a legal limbo, and then torturing them using further loopholes and legal murkiness, and denying them any protection under the Geneva convention. And that's the reason they should be simply released. Because WE fucked up. We could have done better.

The reality is they are prisoners of war [...] which kind sucks for you if you were fighting a holy war to the end of eternity.

Then they should have been treated at the very least as POWs.

The reason I call for unconditional release and deportation, is that we really fucked up as a country here. They should have been afforded the legal status and protections of POWs. Morally, we should undo this by simply sending them back home. In the same way that we release a known criminal that we captured with tainted illegal evidence. We know they are bad, but we are a nation of morals and laws. They may well pose some minor ongoing threat to the US and its persons... but so be it. Maybe we'll get them next time. Maybe someone will die first. But that is the price of the moral high ground. That is the price of freedom. That is the price for being a nation of law. We don't get to be completely safe all the time.

And they aren't so supremely dangerous that it justifies perpetuating our mistake. IF they actually and legitimately posed an existential threat to the country then yes, releasing them would not be a viable solution. I would not destroy the nation to make a moral point. But there is simply nothing they can do that is so great a threat that it is worth perpetuating this farce to continue to hold them. And if they play some small part in some small bomb in some possible future scenario... so be it. I'm sure we'll do our best to prevent exactly that; we know who they are and we'll be watching them.

In the future upon capturing an enemy soldier maybe our troops should give the detainee some rations, a weapon, ammo and send them on their way.

In the future, we should categorize them as captured civilians or captured POWs and treat them accordingly; rather than invent shameful legal black holes and then drop them into an oubliette to be forgotten.

Comment Re:Caller ID Blocker (Score 3, Insightful) 250

. There are some very legitimate reasons for this such as: Changing your call back number to a toll-free number, and maintaining the original calling number on forwarded calls.

It should be pretty trivial to develop a system where the carrier can verify that the spoofed ID is in fact a legitimate number tied to the calling organization.

It should be even more trivial to develop a system where the callerid spoofed on my handset can be reported to the carrier, with the time of the call, and they can immediately determine where the call REALLY came from, and report that to me, to the police... to whomever.

Slashdot Top Deals

They are relatively good but absolutely terrible. -- Alan Kay, commenting on Apollos