Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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: I don't think wiretapping is the issue here. (Score 1) 223

by zerotorr (#44601989) Attached to: Should Cops Wear Google Glass?
What's the difference between this and vehicle mounted cams, as far as privacy goes? If the officer is present, then obviously either one parties consented to him being present or it's being conducted in public place. Unless the officer is hiding in your bedroom closet... And if that's the case... you don't need google glass to record things....

Comment: Re:I have an idea (Score 1) 133

by zerotorr (#42643987) Attached to: Intel To Help Stephen Hawking Communicate Faster
Your're talking about what monkeys get and such, but i'm pretty sure what Stephen Hawking wants, Stephen Hawking gets. If it were possible currently, he would have it if he wanted it. Also, of course companies put money into what they can get out of it, penis pills and such, otherwise they wouldn't be companies! If you want something better, start lobbying your damn government to take it up and increase your taxes! Companies are for profit, because they are businesses need to repay their shareholders, otherwise no one will invest and they will stagnate. Government can increase R&D for non profitable research, but someone has to pay for that, and that will be you. And if you want to pay for it, then run for government or vote for someone who will make that happen.

Comment: Re:FAA, not FCC (Score 1) 449

by zerotorr (#42436675) Attached to: FAA Device Rules Illustrate the Folly of a Regulated Internet
I believe the first sentence of the parent post covers this... "While the FAA has rules regarding electronics usage, cell phones in airplanes are covered specifically by the FCC." Also, here's a link (pdf) from the FCC describing their take on it:

Comment: FCC, not FAA (Score 5, Informative) 449

by zerotorr (#42435029) Attached to: FAA Device Rules Illustrate the Folly of a Regulated Internet
While the FAA has rules regarding electronics usage, cell phones in airplanes are covered specifically by the FCC. The FCC bans them because of the tax it would put on the system with thousands of cell phones switching cell towers much more rapidly then if those same phones were driving. They were worried about the significant overhead this would cause the cell system. While I've seen and heard many people complain about how much they don't believe that their phones would interfere with any avionics in any way, and they should be allowed to use them, I've never seen anyone address this specifically. What bothers me even more is that I've heard so many people complain about this, yet a simple wiki search reveals the actual reasoning behind the ban. I'm not saying it's justified or not, but if you're going to complain about something, at least don't be ignorant about it. Even if they didn't interfere with the airplane, there's more to it than that. specifically- United States: To prevent disruption to the cell phone network from the effects of fast-moving cell phones at altitude (see discussion below), the FCC has banned the use of cell phones on all aircraft in flight.

Comment: Re:Trade war (Score 2) 265

by zerotorr (#41767319) Attached to: Chinese Rare Earths Producer Suspends Output

Start putting tariffs on anything made with Chinese rare earths. Since China is a net exporter, they have the most to lose playing these games.

That's ridiculous. The largest purchaser of rare earth minerals are US companies. Tariffs are meant to encourage people to buy products from other countries, mainly the host country. There really are no other producers of rare earth minerals to choose from, not in quantities large enough to satisfy demand. That would be like increasing taxes on oil to encourage people to not buy from the middle east. There's just not enough being produced outside there to satisfy demand. The economy would crumble. What the US needs to do is encourage production elsewhere of these minerals, so we're not tied to China so much.

Comment: Re:MREs (Score 3, Informative) 220

by zerotorr (#41249313) Attached to: NASA Working on Mars Menu
I'm not sure why this got moderated as funny. Alot of time and research has already gone into long term food preparation/storage for the military services. I've lived off them solely for a few months, and while that's not three years, it's not unimaginable. Now, they've faced alot of criticism, but they were never intended to replace 5 star restaurants, or even your grandmother's cooking. Also, much of that criticism is from the military... and anyone who's served knows that complaining is most every soldier's favorite pastime (me included). And for christ's sake... you're going to Mars! I'd suffer a little lack of flavoring for that opportunity.

Comment: standard too high. (Score 5, Insightful) 559

by zerotorr (#40280355) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Ambitious Yet Ethical Software Jobs?
No, because all that computing is being done on machines using rare-earth blood minerals mined in Africa, or composed of parts machined in sweat shops in China. Seriously, if you're going to claim that level of ethicality, you should be farming your own veggies in a self sufficient, carbon neutral commune.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A firefly is not a fly, but a beetle.