Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Why disable? (Score 1) 355

I think in the long term you'll find there's no way in hell ads can match the revenue of mining. There were all sorts of people in the past that used to laugh at Bitcoin miners because they were spending "so much" on mining multiple bitcoins... I'm pretty sure the $10 of electricity then was worth it in the end.

As for it being more inefficient in Javascript, so what? The point is that randomly I would collect just a tiny bit of whatever, using code that someone else had spent a lot of care crafting and optimizing. It's not like I would go to the trouble of setting up and running my own miners, so it's handy.

Comment Driving is all about percentages (Score 1) 412

I've driven nearly a half million miles, the majority of which in cars with no cell phones.

I've driven a lot more than that, so I recognize a fundamental truth you do not yet - given enough driving, the percentages will catch up to you and you will have close calls, or potentially accidents.

Using Waze for visibility as to conditions ahead improves the odds that I will not have close calls, which may turn into accidents. I have been able to help prevent others from having accidents because I was prepared to help them be able to move lanes if needed due to anticipated hazards...

If youÃ(TM)re driving, you need to drive and put the toys away.

You're among the people I help by knowing what is ahead and you do not... that's fine, I don't mind being partially responsible for you being safe but I wouldn't paint your choice of ignorance as any kind of virtue.

I guess since you don't like knowing what is ahead well before you get there, you must also not use headlights... just toys after all.

Comment One good aspect of that with USB-C (Score 1) 342

I totally have seen the same issues you have (especially having to carefully suss out what would really connect my display port connection to a 4k monitor), but I do think USB-C will help in one way - because you can just buy a high-quality USB-C cable to connect to whatever monitor you like.

Sure it may not work at full res, if you didn't research carefully enough both sides of the equation. But at least it's one small step better than USB-A in that the cable is not as much of a question because each end will plug in correctly (not like having to think about a mini DP to full DP cable).

I honestly don't think hardware requirements will be any more confusing for people already than it is today. And heck, consumers already got an early taste of this on a macro level with HDMI itself, where you might have a TV that can do 3D and a blu-ray player than cannot... or high dynamic range, or even real 4K support there as well. Consumers have already been immersed in a world where the cables all look the same but you have to think hard about the hardware you use at either end.

Comment Not at all standard (Score 1) 342

Moreover, USB3 ports are blue

Years of Mac USB-3 ports have never been blue, in fact I don't know I've even seen a computer where it was color coded. Maybe in the early days of USB 3.0 some PC's came that way... they do not now.

There are oodles of PC's at best buy with non-blue USB-3 ports. Must be yet another part of the USB "standard" that everyone ignores.

By contrast, let's take a USB-C to HDMI adapter.

And the USB-A to HDMI adaptors work more constantly? Nope. Most require USB3.0 and since you can't tell that from looking at the port generally...

That's a far cry from "my external drive is only moving data at 45MB/sec instead of 85MB/sec", because that's not "technically work[ing]", that's
"actually working".

Hmm... have you *used* USB2.0 and USB 3.0 drives? You are really comparing 30MB/s (real transfer speeds factoring in USB overhead) to USB 3.0 and 3.1 realistic speeds of 500MB/s and 1GB/s respectively...

It's not "actually working" if you have a TB or more of data to transfer and you end up on USB 2.0. It's "technically infeasible" as would be printing it all out on paper and typing it in elsewhere, even though that would be "technically working" also.

Comment They already put in something worse. (Score 1) 412

If automakers added a mount which let you view your phone while driving, and you got into an accident while using it while driving

Although that may be a reason why then do a number of cars offer shelves for phones in the car? It would seem to have exactly the same issue, only worse since you must actually look down.

A car is full of potential liability, but that hasn't stopped car makers from doing things like, say, putting in large distracting screens.

I was in a rental car recently, I forget the make, but it had this video screen actually mounted so it came up out of the dash. Once I figured out how to mute the radio that was on, all this screen did while I was driving was sit there glowing with this huge VOLUME MUTED graphic covering half the screen. It was horribly distracting, but they put it in anyway... if car makers can build in a Screen of Doom into most cars you can't even disable, the certainly they could live with the small amount of liability putting in a generic shelf that could hold a phone around the bottom of the dash when someone needed to use a phone for navigation.

Comment Re:Why extended? (Score 1) 412

The premise of the article is that drivers are engaging in more complex tasks; sharing, authoring, editing. And that is driving (!) an uptick in fatalities.

Even so...

So if your response is that drivers are not, in fact, trying to do anything that takes more than a fraction of a second, well, to hell with TFA.

My response is that a mount that keeps the phone and road visible at the same time means drivers that are doing ANYTHING with the phone will spend far less time at it if they do not have to look down, and furthermore if they are going to do those things will at least also have the road visible at the same time, which many of them do not today.

It's pretty obvious that having the phone and road visible at the same time is safer. How can you or anyone deny this simple truth?

It's obvious, as anyone who has used a phone in a car in both configurations knows. This is all exactly in like with TFA.

In addition to that I am ALSO saying there are benefits that can bring more safety to drivers than you lose by having the phone visible.

Comment Re:USB-A did not "just work" at outset either. (Score 0) 342

You might want to pick that mic back up.



What difference does it make if its the cable or the port doing the compliance with the spec still part of the standard.

But you are talking about angels dancing on the head of a pin here; the fact is the average user can pick up a USB cable and there is literally no way to know if it will provide power or not, support high speed at a properly or not... or even work or not even if the plugs fit. Just like USB-C.

The fact is I am right, and you are wrong. It's that simple and I refuse to waste more of my time as you argue semantics while I repeat the brutal truth of reality to you over and over again.

So you can have the last word after this but I have illustrated beyond any doubt there is no functional difference between USB-A and USB-C issues for users of devices and cables. You are focused only on the immediate present and for some reason cannot see the future, which has a similar arc as did USB-A, nor the past in which you had to pay careful attention indeed to both the computer you had and the device you were buying even if you were connecting via the "standard" USB-A connector. Why can you not see that? A mystery.

If the USB-C standard required that all specified protocols be supported, that would solve... ...nothing, the same way the mash of USB-A standards did not result in anything but a morass of partial compliance. You are acting as if specs will always be followed to the letter, a foolhardy expectation indeed given all of human history (and the need for innovation) stomps on your naivete and laughs.

Again going back to power did everyone wait for that USB charging standard or did companies and devices just plow ahead first with a bunch of different schemes to do fast charging over USB-A before there was any spec??? The history of USB-A is a prefect fractal example, over any period or any aspect of the spec you find endless layers of nonconformance and stepping outside the standard in ways that meant devices would not always work with everything you could connect via the cable.

Comment That's the opposite of what I said (Score 1) 412

Please stop driving.

Please stop posting.

I doubt either will happen, but my actions make the road safer while yours mislead people and cause harm...

The research is now rather old that shows using a hands free phone to chat is as bad or worse that driving drunk.

"The research" is about using hands free to text or call, not about using the phone for navigation and driving assistance. Nor does it generally factor in placement at all, which makes your precious "research" worse than useless - it is in fact misleading people as to what is safe.

If you did any research at all on use of smart phones to provide heads up about road conditions ahead, you would find it makes you more safe, not less, because you the driver are much less surprised by the actions of drivers around and ahead of you.

The idea that you want to put your cell phone somewhere so you can look at it rather than out of your windshield is horrifying.

That is totally backwards from what I said. I said I want to put the phone somewhere where I can see it IN ADDITION TO the view ahead, in fact the exact thing I said was that the problem is that people are using phones in places (like a cupholder) where the really do have to choose between looking at the road or the phone. My solution means they can see both, thus being far safer and also taking less time to do something like understand what the nav system is saying.

I think it's amusing that otherwise rational Slashdot posters are claiming there is NO DIFFERENCE between looking away from the road completely for seconds at a time, vs. glancing at something in the corner of your eye while still seeing the road ahead quite clearly 100% of the time... when will you start thinking before you post?

Comment Why extended? (Score 1) 412

You're still engaged with the screen, and for an extended (at highway speeds) time.

Why do you think this time is extended? I have driven for many years with dash mounts for phones, It only takes a tenth of a second to verify some information on the device in terms of navigation and and running Waze I have eliminated way more potential for danger than I have caused - I have slower down for objects on the road before they were visible, or prepared for cars suddenly stopping for traffic beforehand by increasing the distance to the car ahead.

Mounting options are plentiful in most cars. Vent holders, cup holderholders, stick ons, mats

But they are all extra things you have to buy and generally do not work very well. I have used them all; vent holders are probably the best, but are prone to failure with cars vibrating as they drive, and sometime vent designs totally mess with vent holders. Cup holders are the worst idea because they drag your attention down and are no better than a phone just set in the holder. Stick ons are too fussy and most people will not use them, mats are terrible because now your phone is at a really bad angle and you cannot read it...

I'm taking about some kind of design that would provide a simple shelf near eye level into which most phones could be placed without falling over or down. But there is nothing like it on any new car I've seen in years...the closest they come is built in shelves which again are way below eye level.

There is, however, no escaping the problem of doing work on a phone for longer than 2 seconds at a time.

Sure there is; the phone being at eye level means you don't need to take two seconds for something, now you can take a fraction of a second instead and have the road in your peripheral vision the whole time.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't drop acid, take it pass-fail!" -- Bryan Michael Wendt