Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Where? (Score 1) 88

bottled water packaging cannot claim to combat dehydration

Less stupid that you might think.
Of course, bottled water works against dehydration... Like almost all non-alcoholic beverages and some types of solid food.
But the reason why this law exist is to prevent sellers from implying that bottled water is the best way to combat dehydration, which is not true. Tap water, soda, juice, etc... work just as well. And in some cases, like when you need electrolytes, there are better alternatives.
You may call it over-regulation but I think that it does make sense.

Comment "Involve" a mobile device ? (Score 1) 341

A robbery involving mobile devices doesn't mean that the robber robs a mobile device from the robbed.
For example, if robbers use phones to coordinate an assault, then a phone is involved. If a robber steals cash to buy a phone, a phone is also involved.

Just saying that with words like "involve" it is easy to create misleading statistics.

Comment Energy from the blood stream. (Score 3, Interesting) 219

A watch can be easily connected to the blood vessels in the wrist and use the O2 / glucose mix as an energy source like the rest of your body. Recharge by eating. This would be real bleeding-edge technology.

Note that the use of blood as a power source (for implants) is seriously being researched. Look up "biofuel cell".

Comment It doesn't have to be radio controlled (Score 1) 364

I seriously doubt the credibility of the article.
Anyways, remote stop doesn't mean that you can stop any car, anywhere. It can be the equivalent of a virtual barrier, for example, an induction loop may be placed at some key points like red lights to transmit the signal only to cars that pass over it.

Comment Re:Blah Blah Blah (Score 1) 247

Yes, we can consider "stay-at-home parent" as a field. But because it is a job that doesn't have a price tag, it is somehow considered inferior. It's not. Don't underestimate the value of a stay-at-home parent.
Cooking, cleaning, taking care of the kids, shopping, etc... Without a stay-at-home parent, you have to pay good money for someone to do this (here goes your hard earned money). You can also live in filth and neglect your kids (wow, that's progress !). Or you can attempt to do it in addition to your day job (and live an exhausting and stressful life).

Comment Re:Firefox OS (Score 1) 303

Firefox OS, aka "Boot to Geko" is actually just a web browser running on top of a linux kernel with a minimal interface between the two. It's great if you like web technologies (HTML, CSS, JS, ...) but not if you want something close to a desktop GNU/Linux system. Even Android is better in this regard.
You can probably hack Firefox OS to get a UNIX shell, run native code, etc... but AFAIK, it is against Mozilla's philiosophy so don't expect much support.

Comment Re:MP4 is open (Score 1) 247

If the word CODEC is so important to you that you write it in all caps, at least use it correctly.
A codec is not a standard nor a format, it's software or hardware that deals with compession and decompression. x264 is a codec, h.264 is not.

And BTW, x264 is free software, that's for sure. But if you use it as a h.264 encoder, you have to comply with the conditions imposed by MPEG-LA. It includes paying royalties in some cases.

Comment Re:Old news...very old (Score 1) 207

Non flying cars do not produce vortexes like planes do. Tailgating work by exploiting the low pressure area behind the front car. There may be a bit of turbulence but it's not what is important.
Planes, like almost all heavier than air things that fly, work by making the air go down, which, by reaction, makes the plane go up. This downwards moving air ends up spinning around, creating the vortex. Cars don't need lift, and generate thrust by pushing on the road, not on the air. As a result, they don't need vortexes.

Comment Re:Automated vehicles already exist (Score 2) 937

For planes, auto-pilot is easier. Obstacles in air are very uncommon. You could cruise simply by going blindly from A to B in a straight line and the chances of hitting anything will be very low. You just need relatively simple systems to reduce this risk to something insignificant. Take off and landing are a bit trickier but even these are more predictable than driving.
Plus, you still have two highly trained pilots aided by air traffic controllers.

Comment Re:Very different code (Score 1) 225

No, the specs shouldn't be restricted for style reasons. I believe that the permissive specs and "undefined behaviors" are part of what made C and later C++ so successful.
I hate it when languages try to dictate how I should code when there are no technical reasons. My beliefs are that languages should be designed for experts, not for preventing beginners from shooting themselves in the foot. For this, there are compiler warnings, coding standards, static analysis tools, ... (which I believe are essential)

Now let me tell you a few reasons why "if (a = b)" is better than "a = b;" followed by "if (a)" :
- An extra line takes up screen real estate, which is precious.
- In the two line version, "a" is written twice instead of once. It goes against the principle of code factorization.
Of course there are arguments going against it but it is just to show that it is not clear cut. Personally, I would use "if ((a = b))" : it gets rid of the warning, it's a common way of showing that you are not doing a typical equality test and it doesn't suffer the problems I mentioned.

As for point 2, while it is unlikely to find a compiler that have trouble guessing that the two styles mean the same thing, changing compiler is not that simple, especially if you are on an exotic platform.

I also don't believe in point 3 : whether you use it of not, "if (a = b)" remains uncommon, and it will jump at any experienced programmer.

Slashdot Top Deals

The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. The haves get more, the have-nots die.