Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Drones for Defense (Score 1) 211

flying bombs are called cruise missiles, they've been around for ages and they aren't cheap.

If you need a cruise missile that can fly through a meter square window after flying 1,500 miles, sure, they aren't cheap. But the only thing stopping a hobbyist from turning a model rocket into a cruise missile besides being sensible enough to want to avoid visits from the men in black is that the GPS units refuse to play that game.

Comment Re:Or Bazookas. Or Flamethrowers. Or Grenades... (Score 1) 211

The main difference is that drones are an incredibly expensive and complex way to kill a dozen people, as compared to, say, goons with machetes.

Drones do not yet compete with goons with machetes, but that day will come sooner that you like. However, they are highly competitive with actual trained soldiers already. And if you just throw any and all ethics over the shoulder and go ahead and use chemical weapons and so on, one teensy tiny little plastic piece of shit can kill a whole bunch of people.

Comment Re:satellite or other craft or combination thereof (Score 1) 211

our 'total battlefield awareness' means we use multiple data feeds integrated into a 3D battlefield rendering, with all assests renedered in real time as best as possible...

first, we use satellites for what you describe...or high altitude aircraft networked with the battlefield assests...

The drones we are discussing are aircraft. Some of them were designed first and foremost for surveillance, and most of those were designed specifically with long loiter time in mind specifically for that mission. HTH, HAND.

Comment Re:Not the same... (Score 1) 211

Sure, there's plenty of automatic cameras, snapping away every few seconds for surveillance, but there's no decision-making process there.

That is false not only at first brush, but also when considered in depth. Intelligent cameras have been a thing for years now. The cameras themselves are gaining the ability to determine when there's something worth shooting, with algorithms beyond simple motion detection.

Comment Re:Geothermal power (Score 1) 78

Any needless consumption of energy whose results are unknown should be abhorred. The endless cycle of having to buy new crap because the old crap failed (as opposed to the endless cycle of buying new crap because the old crap is outdated, which we could at least debate) is really an insufferable lot of shit. And there's just a lot of energy going to waste when it would cost very little to retain more of it. And then of course there's war, which these days is a horrible consumer of energy and producer of pollution. War's always had significant environmental impact, but it's well off the charts now by ancient standards. To deforestation you can add all kinds of fun goodies like depleted uranium.

You're right about the lack of sense of scale, though.

Comment Re:BART (Score 1) 125

It wasn't built to supplement the transportation needs of carless San Francisco residents. It was built to shuttle people around the Bay Area. If you needed to get to the airport, you got there like everybody else--you drove your car.

But this just comes right back to how BART is stupid. Because when you build public transportation, it's going to be used by people who don't have cars, and to not take them into account is fucking stupid. Also, it's just stupid not to have the rail be able to take commuters from an airport to downtown no matter how you slice it. That should have been an initial design goal.

Comment Re:spam wonderful spam (Score 2) 209

unless you are the president of a large company or a politician, nobody cares about you ...

We were thinking you could fire 500,000, from one of the smaller companies?

Fire one million.

and if you were, they wouldn't have to break into google to steal your data.

Nobody has to break into Google to get your data, Google will hand it over to the government on request. Is it Evil to comply with an Evil order?

Comment Re:Climate (Score 1) 810

This is why the EV manuals say that if you're going to leave the car parked for a weeks in cold weather, make sure it's plugged in.

See, this is what happened to all the Atlantean artifacts, except theirs had to be plugged in to not disintegrate ;)

This must be a plot in some extant sci-fi novel already, right? I suppose there's similarities in Ringworld.

Comment Re:2 Words (Score 1) 810

That is nice, where is my EV full-size SUV for a similar price to my gas full-size SUV?

None of the EVs are actually price-competitive at purchase time without a big rebate. A gasser that fulfills the same function, probably with a little less acceleration but otherwise equivalent, is still cheaper. Your full-size SUV will cost significantly more or have very crap range.

There was a hybrid Durango, but it cost $85k and Dodge terminated it for lack of interest. No shit, huh? I can't imagine who wouldn't want to pay Viper prices for a sluggish SUV.

On the other hand, the Denali's name is a barely-transposed acronym. Get a smaller car.

Comment Re:No kidding? (Score 2) 111

No, no you didn't address why vnc doesn't cover those use cases. You made some excuses, but it works fine in most of them, or is almost adequate. I've been running X remotely since before vnc existed. You have no idea whatsoever what I've done, and I have plenty of perspective on the way X remoting is used. Further, I read your shitty comment, and I thought it was stupid but I chose to ignore the parts I thought were stupid and simply write a simpler comment that explained precisely what the problem was. But since you're being such a whiny little baby about this, let's go ahead and go back and see what you said, and why it is stupid. And in fact, it will also reveal why this comment of yours is stupid, and hopefully establish a pattern of stupidity so that when I call you an idiot I am modded insightful instead of troll or flamebait.

Let's begin.

VNC being 1 to 1 instead of many to one is almost entirely useless in that situation as you see people running applications on several different hosts and looking at it all on the screens in front of them.

This sentence is not only tortured, but ignorant. It's ignorant for a number of reasons, but only one is important: you can run multiple VNC client sessions on a single machine and, if your window management system permits it, tile them so that you can see them all at once.

Also, what the actual fuck? Are they supposed to be looking at it all, or perhaps part of it, on screens which are behind them? I suppose they could install a mirror above their primary display for this purpose.

Now, on to the reason why this comment that I am replying to is stupid: I did in fact address your comment in my comment, proving beyond any doubt to anyone with more than two neurons to spark against one another that I did read your blather. I said, and I quote, "Also, there's no reason you couldn't have a single-window vnc-like tool." You went on to complain that I apparently didn't read your comment after I addressed it. If your reading comprehension skills had progressed beyond Hop on Pop then perhaps you would have recognized this fact, and saved me the trouble of chastising you again.

In summary, take your meds, fucko.

Comment Re:Actually it's you that do not understand (Score 1) 343

No, it's from the "holy fuck you are so far out of your depth I can't understand why you are still breathing" department. I'm sure you know a bit about some topics. I suggest you write about those instead.

I'm sorry, did you catch your knickers in the paper shredder that morning?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." -- Alexander Graham Bell