Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Give me a break (Score 1) 128

Yes, but he's not agreeing with the summary, is he ? I knew reading comprehension on this site had declined, but I was hopeful it wasn't as bad as this...

Here's how it works.

1) A story is posted
2) Comments are made
3) Each comment can have a hierarchy of sub-comments. The text of any given comment is relative to its parent.

Just like this comment, calling your statement [the parent comment to this one] idiotic.

He was agreeing with his parent's comment, which is (rightly, IMHO) pointing out that Apple is actually going out of their way to make a fix they'd made (and QA'd with their hardware to work perfectly) *also* work with the non-Apple third-party hardware. This is Apple going above and beyond, and if you can't see that, well, that's more a problem with you than anything else.

And the douchebag that wrote the original clickbait, of course.

Comment Re: Political Party explains this (Score 2) 212

No he didn't, he said that the Chinese never felt the need to contradict progressive ideas. Meaning, they had no political reasons to deny global warming. In America, we are so polarized that each side will deny anything the other side says, in a knee-jerk fashion. China, as a dictatorship, doesn't have that problem.

Also, nice sig line.

Comment Re:Politicians and business leaders said... (Score 0) 212

It was a true statement of fact. If we had managed to dominate in this market, it would have brought jobs to the US. We didn't care enough to achieve dominance in this market, therefore, another country ate our lunch and we may not see the jobs flowing to our country, but going to the market leader, China, instead. Try taking off your partisan blinders before reading, it helps with comprehension.

Comment Re:Didn't consider miniaturization? Moore's Law? (Score 3, Insightful) 208

You are on to something with safety in redundancy through separate virtual machines.

Except of course for the "virtual" part.

There has to be physical redundancy such that there is backup when something bricks one of the computers. As will happen every so often when self-driving cars are doing millions of highway miles each year. Additionally, self-driving cars need enough AI to bee able to identify the car ahead in the fast lane with the nearly flat rear tire is a threat; that the hail that is bouncing off the road a hundred yards ahead is a danger; and that little Timmy in the back seat who is making urrping noises means that there is an urgent need to stop on the shoulder so you can get his head out the door before he pukes.

The computer network that has the smarts to handle all the stuff that can happen on the road will easily require 4 kw power, including the cooling system that will keep it functioning when you are stuck in the commuter traffic jam.

As far as driving on the open road is concerned, the best we can hope for in the foreseeable future is improved auto-pilots, that will still require a trained and experience driver, who is alert and paying attention, behind the wheel.

Comment Re:Sad and sick (Score 1) 200

Perhaps I was unclear. It's a bullshit argument that eventual technological innovation can reduce present day harms. I mean, that should be self evident. The idea that some CEO is thinking of some future innovation curtailing his monopoly power, and deciding not to do something heinous lest it speed the day, is ludicrous. CEOs don't care about five years from now. Are we at least clear what we are arguing about now?

Slashdot Top Deals

Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.