Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Need wider FOV lenses (Score 1) 464

When I got my progressives I was put in front of a machine that analyzed the way I look at things, some people apparently move their eyes and heads in different proportions - the machine put up various targets at the periphery of my vision and used cameras to look at my eye and head movements which was then factored into my prescription. These glasses are the best I've ever owned and I use a computer with multiple large monitors every day. I'd say you need a different progressive lenses with a wider field of view since it looks like you want to move your eyes and not your head in such a situation - you might also try sitting further away from your monitors (you probably already tried that though)

Just my own experience - love my progressive lenses !

Comment Too bad they might no't be able to use them (Score 4, Informative) 108

The US House of Representatives passed H.R. 4660 yesterday, Rep,. Rush Holt (D-N.J) added a couple of amendments to this bill which prohibit local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies from purchasing or using unmanned aircraft based on privacy concerns....

So the next time a quad copter in the hands of a law enforcement agency could have potentially found a lost hiker, or monitored a wildfire etc.. I guess you're out of luck....

Comment Re:Such a stupid, wasted idea. (Score 1) 311

I could not agree more - this idea has so many flaws and will not and cannot scale. You know what would make sense - putting solar panels on rooftops. I'll bet there is way more surface area covered by building roofs than there is roads AND the power is generated where it is needed and oh guess what, infrastructure to get the power on to the grid is already there, oh wait, the problem with this idea is that since its not roads the GOVERNMENT likely would not pay for it. Oh well, I don't know if anybody already said it but I guess there IS a sucker born every minute. I hope the nice couple that supposedly invented this really believes in what they are doing so at least its not blatant fraud....

Comment Re:What about radar? (Score 5, Informative) 382

Actually air traffic control radars ARE radars, the transponder merely fills in the ID data (as a beacon as you said). Aircraft without transponders show up as unidentified targets with a heading, range, and speed. Transponders work are farther ranges because there is only a one way free space loss to the aircraft, when relying only on a radar "echo" the loss is both directions

Comment Re:Actually, many lives have been saved with drone (Score 1) 187

actually a valid point - not to mention Combat Search And Rescue (CSAR) missions, and convoy protection (stopping he convoy before getting to the roadside bomb) Global Hawk was used to provide surveillance of California wildfires to aid firefighters etc.. also likely saving lives. I think its awesome that the RCMP is using remotely piloted technology and it is cool it paid off in a tangible way of saving a life- but drones have save lots of lives in less visible ways

Comment Re:Brilliant (Score 4, Insightful) 1232

maybe they should publish a list of homes with poisonous household chemicals, prescription drugs, swimming pools, razor blades, exposed A/C outlets, 6 foot ladders, ornamental samurai swords and anything else that might harm children... Do you not see how absurd this is ? IMHO this is utterly insane, it is NOT the same as publishing a list of registered sex offenders, protecting children from people is not the same as protecting them from objects. If your child goes over to a neighbors house its OK to ask them if they have guns and they are safe, in fact its YOUR responsibility as a parent !!

Slashdot Top Deals

You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 10^12 to 1. -- Ernest Rutherford