Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Is Carbon Fiber Going Mainstream? 152

Posted by samzenpus
from the build-it-better dept.
cartechboy (2660665) writes "To date, carbon fiber has been expensive and presents different production challenges than traditional steel and aluminum. But now it seems as if the advanced material is about to become truly mainstream--BMW has announced it plans to triple carbon fiber reinforced plastic output at its Moses Lake facility in Washington state. Currently, the SGL Group plant, a joint venture partner of BMW Group, has the production capacity for about 3,000 tons of carbon fiber per annum. Two productions lines are currently going with the output dedicated to BMW's i3 and i8 plug-in vehicles. SGL is already working on a third and fourth production line which would double production to 6,000 tons per year, but a fifth and sixth are on the way, set to triple capacity to 9,000 tons every year. This extra output won't be reserved exclusively for BMW's i range. Several future BMW models will make use of the lightweight material. Now the only question is how long before carbon fiber vehicle construction becomes as common as aluminum?"

Microsoft Quietly Fixes Windows XP Resource Hog Problem 246

Posted by timothy
from the hey-cut-that-out dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft indicated this week that it has fixed a Windows XP resource-hog problem associated with the system's SVCHOST.EXE processes. Windows XP users affected by this problem typically found that the operating system was using up system resources for 15 minutes to an hour after startup, making it difficult to use the machine during that period. The Microsoft Update team had vowed last month to spend the holiday break tackling the issue, which has plagued some users for years. The fix involved stopping the system from perpetually checking Internet Explorer updates. Microsoft indicated that the fix was rolled out on Tuesday."

Comment: 49% is not their profit margin (Score 1) 272

by wilsone8 (#40898257) Attached to: Carriers Blame the iPhone For Data Caps and Increased Upgrade Fees

Per a link in that very article, Verizon made $1.83 billion profit on sales of $28.6 billion last quarter. That's not a 49% profit margin. That's a 6% profit margin. They had a "49.0 percent segment EBITDA margin on service revenues (non-GAAP)". I don't claim to know exactly what that means, but its not profit margin the way I (and I think most other people) understand profit margins.

Comment: Re:Might be a bluff, otherwise we've a lot of work (Score 2) 186

by wilsone8 (#35177666) Attached to: MPEG LA Attempts To Start VP8 Patent Pool

Don't kill software patents just to use H.264 though. Kill software patents because it is ridiculous that an algorithm is patentable just because it executes on a computer.

I never understood this one. If anything, clever algorithms should be the ONLY software I am allowed to patent (one-click is not clever, GIF's compression was). These people worked hard to come up with a novel idea that they then want to make money from. What is wrong with that exactly? Why SHOULDN'T they be able to patent them? We let people patent novel ways of building a mousetrap. If my mousetrap is virtual, why is that any different?

Comment: Re:Downright evil (Score 1) 535

by wilsone8 (#35084048) Attached to: Microsoft Makes Chrome Play H.264 Video

They offered patent indemnification from patents that 'Google' holds. That's nice, but that doesn't protect you from the patents that anyone else holds. H.264 has been around long enough that it is unlikely their are anymore submarine patents out there (or if there are, it is likely they can brought into the patent pool). Also, Microsoft has agreed to indemnify any user using H.264 on their platform. Google refuses to do the same for WebM.

Software patents are evil, but they are also very painful if you are the one sued. Personally, I would rather deal with the devil I know than the devil I don't.

Comment: Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (Score 1) 535

by wilsone8 (#35083796) Attached to: Microsoft Makes Chrome Play H.264 Video


More like feathering ones own nest.
After all, Microsoft is a member of the H.264 Licensors. They stand to profit by the continued adoption of H.264.

Actually, I can't even see Google getting all fussed about this, because they will not have to pay a license fee in 2016 because its not part of Chrome proper. Microsoft may not need to pay either, since as members they may get a free pass (just speculation on my part there).

They don't profit. Microsoft is on record saying they pay more into the patent pool then they get paid. That's why the add-on only works on Windows. The OS already comes with a license for H.264, so you don't need another to run video in any particular application.

Comment: Re:Content Freedom? (Score 1) 747

by wilsone8 (#33586892) Attached to: HDCP Master Key Revealed

Very admirable. But somehow the high morals of everyone on slashdot doesn't mesh with what I see in the real world.

Let me be clear: I don't have a problem with breaking DRM because you want to listen/watch something on another device. That's fine (and mostly legal these days).

My problem is EVERYONE who pirates seems to say this same thing: I would never have paid for this! And yet they keep what they downloaded and keep listening/watching it. No one I know at least ever paid for any song once they had downloaded it for free. Sorry, but that is copyright infringement and morally wrong to me at least.

Comment: Content Freedom? (Score 3, Insightful) 747

by wilsone8 (#33572556) Attached to: HDCP Master Key Revealed

Why is I when I read "content freedom", I have a feeling you mean your ability to copy movies from torrent and avoid having to pay anyone for the huge investment and hard work they put into making movies. Sure, that's not what everyone will use it for, but it seems like most will. That's not something to cheer about in my book, but to each his own.

Comment: Re:It's the freeloaders time (Score 1) 1051

by wilsone8 (#31395972) Attached to: Ars Technica Inveighs Against Ad Blocking

Well, I wonder why advertisers bother with this whole idea of targeted marketing at all. I mean, if a man learns about a new tampon product; if a gay person reading a gay magazine learns about a new contraceptive product or say a Russian brides website; and if Slashdotters learn about the latest product from My Little Pony, it's done its job, right?

Ok, but GQ is a magazine for men. Hence, advertising it on a site that is visited mostly by men sounds like good targeted advertising to me at least. I think trying to pretend that My Little Pony is the same as GQ is just a little bit of a strech.

I mean, if I like a website, should I sit and hit reload repeatedly, so that they get even more ad revenue?

Typically, sites are only paid for the unique vistor, so I don't think that would make any difference. Even if did, the point isn't to maximize the site's revenue. The point is to pay for the service they are providing (even if you pay indirectly by viewing ads). You want the content without paying for it, which seems wrong to me.

A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start, and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim. -- Leibnitz