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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:Noise pollution (Score 1) 240

If you were handy, we'd do a little test. I'll take four different size multi-rotors up to 400' when you're not looking, and then we'll see how well you can tell where they are, which direction they're going, or if you can even hear them at all.

Then, I'll bring one in for a quick vertical landing at the same time a UPS diesel panel truck rolls up next to you to make a delivery, and you can tell me where the drone is, using only your ears.

You're speaking without experience, or deliberately trolling.

Comment Re:Americans...why ? (Score 1) 240

The massive amount of people killed each year

You mean the number that is far lower than the number of people killed through preventable accidents in hospitals? Or in car accidents? That sort of thing? The number that's been going steadily down for 30 years? The number half of which are suicides? The murders that are highly concentrated in just a handful of some sections of some urban areas that also feature high numbers of knifings, beatings, and other kinds of murders? Take those few urban areas (run, every one of them, for decades by progressive lefty legislatures/councils and executives) out of stats, and the murder rate in general (to say nothing of those that happened to involve the use of a firearm) are below 16 other modern western democracies including in Europe. In other words, "Americans" don't want to shoot anything/everything, but there are some urban areas in the US where politcal correctness and lefty politics have cultivated acute local crime problems. These are also the areas with the most draconian gun control laws, of course.

If you think your guns let you defend yourself against the government, you really need some help.

Which comment of mine are you replying to, exactly? Please be specific.

Comment Re:jobs (Score 1) 117

It's far cheaper to get 90% for not a lot, and fix the bugs.

Not if you have an entirely different person assigned to fixing the bugs.

I once knew someone who claimed that whenever an employee left his/her programs would end up being totally rewritten by the next person. Because it was easier to start from scratch than to deal with someone else's coding quirks.

Comment Re:the main legit use i can see (Score 1) 240

I presume that this would be integrated with some kind of app on the receiver end. When the truck is dispatched (or, if the depot is in range, when the parcel is ready for direct dispatch), you'd get a message telling you the time window when it will be available. You then signal that you're ready to receive it and give some GPS coordinates. It's then dispatched and sends another message when it's a few hundred metres away. You then go outside (or stand on a balcony) and wait for it to be delivered directly to you. Once it's very close, it can use WiFi from your phone (send your MAC address to the drone and the SSID that you're associated with - or create an ad-hoc network if you're out of range and it can home in on you) to check that it's actually landing by the correct person. Then just tap the 'delivery received' button and it will fly away.

Comment Re:Wildly expensive (Score 1) 80

So I have a hunch the copyright holders of these older movies will try to get much larger licensing fees out of MST3k this time around.

Maybe, if they're clueless. Lots of movies that were basically collecting dust have experienced a "revival" from being lampooned on MST3K. For example, Manos, the Hands of Fate is basically a household name among movie geeks these days. If your movie is truly pretty shit and it's not making any money for you, you know the old saying about bad publicity...

Comment Re:Bringing stuff back (Score 2) 80

Yeah, I hate to say it, but I don't particularly relish the idea of an aging Joel or Mike besmirching the memory of the original by attempting to reclaim the old magic.

It won't be either. They're not ruling out the old characters making cameos or something, but they're getting a new, younger host (some comedian) and a couple other new people to play the bots. Joel's mostly just running the show.

Comment Re:How does space elevator save energy? (Score 2) 126

No space elevator designs that are even vaguely plausible include a moving cable. To understand why, consider the mass of such a cable: the energy required to accelerate it and then decelerate it for the cars to start and stop would be phenomenal. You could potentially have a loop that would continuously move in a circle, but you'd still have problems starting it. Just dropping things from the top wouldn't be enough, because you'd need to get them a fair way down before they'd stop orbiting and actually provide force in the correct direction. I don't even want to think about the lateral forces that such a structure would have to endure.

Comment Re:Budget (Score 1) 64

And yet I can't think of one single notable export of Australian TV other than Neighbours and Home and Away which don't exactly have the largest of viewerships anyway.

It's not like Australia is a shining symbol of TV export, so fat lot of good losing the license has done you. In fact, Australian news in particular is renowned for it's complete lack of plurality and this is a large reason why. The BBC allows British TV to punch well above it's weight both in terms of geopolitical influence, and in terms of the money subsequent sales of it's content bring in for the production of new high quality content meaning we get more stuff worth watching.

It also allows the BBC to be a technology driver, being able to develop things like iPlayer meant it led the way in on-demand TV, and nowadays every channel has an on-demand option because of that. The license fee also funds the sustainment of the UK's broadcast network (for radio and TV) and has even been used to help drive broadband rollout.

Most Brits thing the BBC license is a fee worth paying overall, because it's nets us so much for our money. Complaining of misuse real or perceived of it doesn't mean it makes any sense whatsoever to scrap it altogether though.

For what it's worth though the UK has 4 key broadcasters - BBC, ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5. Each is funded in a different manner to ensure the UK has a plurality of funded channels to minimise the chance of conflicts of interest causing problems. The BBC is funded by the license fee, ITV is wholly commercial but an amalgamation of local TV companies designed to provide more locally relevant content, Channel 4 is publicly owned but with no license fee subsidy and is a self-funding non-profit, and Channel 5 is a wholly commercial national station.

That's why any talk of BBC bias, or BBC is the government mouth piece blah blah is largely entirely meaningless and misses the point. We have 4 key very differently organised broadcast channels precisely to prevent that ever being an issue - the point being if the BBC genuinely was suffering from serious systemic bias then the other channels could expose that. If the corporately owned channels were suffering from bias due to corporate influence then the publicly funded BBC, could expose that, if government bias and corporate influence were the problem then the publicly owned but privately run ITV could highlight that. If local issues are being overlooked by the national stations then ITV can highlight that too with it's local stations.

You can't eliminate the BBC's public funding model without removing a keystone of the premise that keeps British TV honest - the fact that they all exist under different regimes to police each other. We've seen this come to the fore on a number of occasions - ITV for example was able to expose the BBC over the failure to publish an investigation into Jimmy Savile for example. It works well and it'd be stupid to mess with it unless you have a vested interest in making sure British TV channels could be trivially manipulated (which is a position we see from Sky for which Murdoch is the majority holder - an Australian media mogul nonetheless who has made his entire fortune and empire on biased media) and to that I say no thank you. Our way is about as good as it's ever going to get really and we need to protect that - the extremes of countries with full commercial and full state controlled TV are just nowhere near as desirable - you're either drowning in ads and product placement, or drowning in state propaganda. We thankfully have to suffer neither of those things to any particularly problematic degree.

Comment Re:Legality? (Score 1) 325

The problem is that there's no real agreement. When you put something on the public web it's public, and people can manipulate and view it how they want. If companies want to force agreements they must create login gateways with explicit conduct agreements or a paywall.

The problem is that companies want their cake and they want to eat it too. They want to gain the benefits of the public web such as easy linkability and searchability, but without the downsides - the aforementioned fact that people can do as they will with the content.

The fact is there is value to having your content public on the open web but companies refuse to accept that, they want to pretend there's no value to it and it's wholly a cost, but if that's true then why do they do it? They do it for the likes of the free advertising results from open content search engines like Google give them.

This is where the battle between corporation and users sit on this issue. Users know that companies are benefiting from the web or they wouldn't be there, so they have little sympathy when companies claim they're not benefiting and need more money because the solution is simple - if you think you're not benefiting from the open web then jump behind a paywall and see if your company can afford to survive without those massive benefits the open web gives you.

The web gives public sites a lot for free in terms of traffic and advertising. That is something that would cost a lot (in terms of having to advertise themselves) to reproduce were it not there. If they insist that every user of their site must net them ad revenue then it's not unreasonable that Google also requests there share by demanding a cut of that revenue each time someone clicks a link (even non-sponsored) from Google to their site - Google is after all giving them advertising and page views for free otherwise.

A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Winston Churchill