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


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: 74 at time of crash (Score 1) 564

Upgraded suspensions and other parts do not change the laws of physics. SUVs have a high center of gravity, and there is no way to change this short of perhaps sticking a bunch of tungsten plates in the floorboards. They are not safe at high speeds, and I really don't care what tests police departments have done. Those same departments thought Crown Vics were safe cars at high speeds, and they're not. They handle like boats (yes, I've driven them).

Americans in general don't have a clue what constitutes a safe vehicle at high speeds. They don't even know what handling is. There's a reason police in Germany would never use vehicles like that. Americans just slap a big engine in something and then think that makes it capable of high speeds, and for a drag strip, they're right, but that's it. But of course, Americans have little concept that roads might have something in them called "curves".

Comment Re:74 at time of crash (Score 1) 564

it isn't cruise control. Auto pilot is supposed to operate at posted speed limits and does a lot more than just cruise control.

"Supposed to", says who? It does more than "just" cruise control, but then so does Honda's cruise control. Other makers are adding features to their cruise control. Tesla added a new name to differentiate from the others that do almost the same thing, but with a much more complicated name.

Comment Re:74 at time of crash (Score 1) 564

Cruise control is different from Auto Pilot.

Autopilot is a speed keeping service that other makers have a similar function, and all others call it cruise control. It's cruise control with lane keeping and distance keeping and brake assist. But, others list all the features separately, and Tesla lists them under a single marketing name.

So it sounds like your technical complaint is the marketing name for the feature.

Comment Re:Teams (Score 1) 204

They already started suing every business around Olympia, WA and the Olympic Mountains for using "Olympic" in their name, despite the names coming from geographical location and some even being around longer than the modern Olympics

And did the local judges in Olympia actually put up with this charade?

Comment Re:oh if only... (Score 1) 204

I'm not sure how much of a hit if your song is about Frank swimming in raw sewage, coming down with dysentery from that, catching the Zika virus from hundreds of mosquito bites, and then being kidnapped for ransom, and then mugged after they release him.

Why any athlete would want to go to Brazil, I have no idea.

Comment Re:74 at time of crash (Score 1) 564

I honestly don't know if 365HP is enough to push an SUV to 140. It's more than enough for a smaller car, but wind resistance goes up with the cube of velocity (see here), and SUVs have far higher drag coefficients and frontal areas than cars. It's probably still enough though. But I still contend that their handling is too poor and this would be extremely dangerous because of this. SUVs (all of them) should be limited to about 65mph IMO because of safety (or maybe even 55). Their handling is just too poor for them to be driven faster. If you want to drive safely at higher speeds, you need a vehicle with a lower center of gravity.

Comment Re:74 at time of crash (Score 1) 564

365 HP may be enough to get you to 140, but the handling on SUVs is not sufficient for those vehicles to be safe at that speed. And a Ford Escort has a much lower center of gravity than any SUV.

Also, I have driven a 90s trooper car (a Ford Crown Vic). Those cars aren't safe to drive at 90, let alone 130. They're heaps of shit with the handling of a boat (and this was true when they were brand-new, which is when I drove one for work a few times).

Comment Re:Not for everyone (Score 1) 256

2. A "more social" experience of the movie is better. It's not for those of us who are introverts. Having people talking and eating all around deprives us of our ability to really enjoy the movie and be completely immersed in the experience.

I completely disagree about the introvert thing.

I'm an introvert, but personally, I rarely want to watch a movie alone. I like to watch movie either with a partner (usually a romantic partner), or with a small group of friends.

However, in both these cases (or for watching it alone too, making it 3 cases), the home-theater is the best choice, by far:

For watching alone, you can be undistracted by others.

For watching with a romantic partner, you can be undistracted by others and cuddle all you want (can't do that in theater seats, there's a divider in the way).

For watching with a group of friends, it's more fun at someone's home where you can have a nice couch/sectional, serve food and drinks, talk to each other about the movie if you need to (and then rewind so you don't miss anything), pause if someone needs a bathroom break or wants to go make some popcorn, etc.

There simply isn't any case I can think of where going to a theater is really that much better than staying at home. So, back to your point about introverts, even for the social experience, watching a movie at home is a superior experience. If I'm with a group of friends and we want to pause the movie and talk about it, you can do that at home, but you can't in a theater. At home, you can limit the social interaction to your preferred companions, and then do whatever that group wants, unlike a theater where you're stuck in there with dozens of other strangers and subject to the rules of the establishment. So yes, for non-social watching, home is better, but for social watching, it's also better.

Comment Re:The Fight to Piracy? (Score 1) 256

Here is how you take the fight to piracy -- take some risks, make some NEW movies (get off the remake train),

So, that's how you fight piracy James. Not make the movie theater experience "unique" -- fucking make the movies unique so we'll want to go see them

You'd think James would know about this too: Avatar (2009) was a hugely successful movie, and for good reason: it was an FX tour-de-force. It was absolutely unique, and it was new. (Yes, the plot wasn't completely unique, but most story plots throughout history are rehashed versions of Greek tales or Shakespeare anyway.) Avatar was a big risk at the time, and it paid off. From what I remember, the studios didn't want to finance it because it was too risky, so James financed a lot himself. This is the problem with Hollywood these days: they don't want to take a risk on a movie like Avatar that's all-new, this is why everything is a sequel, prequel, remake, or reboot: they're less profitable but they're much lower-risk and are usually guaranteed to make some kind of profit.

The sad fact is that TV has gotten much more interesting than movies in recent years. See Game of Thrones for proof of this. You won't see any movies like this from Hollywood.

Slashdot Top Deals

...when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. - Fred Brooks, Jr.