Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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 Re:It's pretty simple (Score 1) 257

I happen to like cold water, at least in the summertime.

However, I really don't like icemakers in freezers. 1) They take up a lot of space, and 2) they use tap water, which is nasty. There doesn't seem to be a way to easily plumb them to use the RO water I buy, so the icemaker in my freezer just sits unused, wasting space. And no, those crappy filters they put in fridges these days are not a proper substitute. 1) They're not reverse osmosis, they're just shitty charcoal filters, and 2) they're horribly expensive to replace.

They should make icemakers easily removable. I'm perfectly capable of making ice myself with trays, which lets me use the water I prefer and not the nasty tap crap.

Comment Re: God no (Score 2) 196

Um, I don't know about you, but while I do admittedly charge my phone on the bedside table, the phone is sitting usually face-up. That means the main camera is pointed at the table surface directly below it so it's useless, and the front-view camera is pointed at the ceiling. The only thing that front-view camera is ever going to see in that position is the belly of one of my cats when they decide to walk over it. (Sometimes the phone is face-down, but this isn't really any different, except that hackers will now have a higher-resolution view of my cat's underside.) The mic is definitely an issue though.

The devices that come to mind immediately as a real danger in this way are these new "smart TVs", since on these any camera is pointing directly at the users in their normal TV-viewing positions. If the TV is in a bedroom, that means it's probably pointed at the bed and has an excellent view of whatever activity happens there. And why a TV could possibly need a camera and microphone, I have no idea. If we ever get to the point where we're Skyping people over TV screens, I can see the use, but we've had Skype-like technology for ages now and it's only rarely used for video chat it seems, and never on a TV that I've ever seen or heard of.

Comment Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? (Score 1) 218

>That's every company's job, but notice how plenty of them manage to do that without taking actions that are "just barely legal" or non-monopolist in nature.

Sure, but that's because their customers will actually leave them if they become too dickish.

But there's LOTS of companies that are just as bad as MS, and people still flock to buy their products. John Deere is one that's come up a lot lately in the tech news. Oracle is another. And there's various other "enterprise" software makers that are generally regarded as making horribly overpriced crap.

>Also, none of the OSes you describe are "ancient" or "obsolete". Both of them are supported right now.

The older Windows versions are nearing EOL. You can go buy a 20-year-old used car and it's still "supported" by the manufacturer, but that doesn't mean they're doing new development on them, or that they're going to help you retrofit a new lane-keeping feature in them from their newest model.

>There's no apologizing for Microsoft here. This is a dick move, and just on the edge of what is allowed.

It *is* a dick move. What I don't understand is why this is some kind of revelation. MS has been doing dickish stuff for as long as I can remember, and really all the way back to their founding 40+ years ago. Don't you remember "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run"? But people keep flocking to buy their stuff. So why shouldn't they be dicks?

>At the end of the day, a lot more people need to be punishing Microsoft instead of feebly trying to apologize for them.

I'm not apologizing for them, I'm explaining how their behavior is perfectly rational and sensible. Very few people seem to grasp this. It's like people not understanding why wild tigers and Grizzly bears aren't nice, friendly, cuddly creatures, and instead will viciously kill you if you get too close to them.

>Sadly, Windows users appear to be willing to put up with anything

That's exactly the problem.

>because the cost of switching to anything else can be so unreasonable.

No, for many it's because they're lazy and refuse to investigate alternatives. Most home users are in this boat. But the same goes for many large companies; they could adopt a custom Linux build if they really wanted, the way some city governments in Europe did, but they just don't want to bother.

Comment Re: Pew Researchers.. no shit sherlock (Score 1) 214

Yes, as someone else pointed out with real data. However, the thing to understand is that not all boomers were hippies, in fact very very few were. The hippies were a tiny, but vocal minority in the Boomer generation. That's why the overall actions of that generation seem so contrary to hippie values. They never had any political power.

Comment Re: Millennials AREN'T a Bunch of Job-Hopping Flak (Score 2) 214

Citation needed. The Millennials I know have Android phones (and may run alternative firmwares), and all the people I know with iPhones are Xers and up.

I'm sorry, but as an Xer myself, I have much more respect for the Millennials than my own generation. My generation seems to be chock-full of people who absolutely refuse to manage their finances properly, and feel entitled to living like kings even when they don't earn enough money to afford all the luxuries they crave. Then they get mad and blame the "Mexicans" and vote for Trump when the problem is really their own stupid life choices.

Comment Re:Hydrogen = oil (Score 1) 160

Unfortunately, green brains tend to disengage before considering the big picture, and "hydrogen" will be pushed forward as an ideology, ignoring where it comes from.

Citation needed on the "green brains" bit. I don't think this push is coming from the environmentalists, it's coming from entrenched industry players who don't want to switch to electric vehicles. The smart environmentalists know that EVs are the real future, not hydrogen. Hydrogen is a stupid fuel; it's expensive to generate (and can't be mined), it's hard to handle, it's very hard to store, it embrittles metal, it has to be stored at incredibly high pressures to get useful energy density, and even then you still have a fraction of the range you get with gasoline/diesel. It's just a terrible idea all around. If you can't switch to all-electric, the next best thing is to switch to CNG or LNG, which are very clean-burning and can use existing engine technology (and even be retrofitted pretty easily on existing vehicles).

The path for "greening" vehicles is pretty simple IMO: hybrid-electric, alternative fuels (LNG/CNG), then all-electric as battery technology improves or quick-swap batteries are standardized on. LNG probably makes more sense for replacing diesel for large engines (esp. for shorter routes), and can then be coupled with hybrid-electric tech for even better efficiency, to get diesel pollution problems way down. Cars should probably just stick with gasoline, adopting hybrid tech. Eventually both can just move to all-EV as batteries improve and costs come down. Hydrogen is an awful distraction that makes no sense.

Comment Re:Scam (Score 1) 160

That'd make a hell of a lot more sense than hydrogen too. LNG and CNG have both been used successfully in vehicles as an alternative fuel for a long time (I remember a big push to retrofit vehicles in Arizona with them back in ~2000, with hefty tax breaks). The main problem is the range isn't as good as gas/diesel, but it's still going to be better than stupid hydrogen, plus you can run it in existing engines with minimal modifications, and the storage tanks are a lot easier to construct and are safer.

Hydrogen is an incredibly stupid and impractical fuel; it's mind-boggling that Toyota is wasting their time with this crap.

Comment Re:Scam (Score 1) 160

Not true.

Fission is stellar, as you said, but definitely not solar, since solar implies it comes from Sol, our current star. The heavy elements came from other stars that are long-since gone.

Also, tidal power is not solar: it comes from the motion of the Moon around the Earth, which is basically just potential energy created by whatever particular process caused the Earth and Moon to come to their current state.

Also, you could make the case that fossil fuels are not entirely solar in nature, and are also "stellar": carbon, like uranium, was created in long-dead stars.

Comment Re:Torque (Score 1) 160

The defined torque is a property of the motor design. Much smaller fuel cells could be used to produce a similar torque given a different motor design.

Actually, you could produce identical torque with no fuel cells at all, and no batteries: just connect the truck and its motor to mains power (through an appropriate power converter).

It's the motor that generates the torque using electricity; where that electricity comes from is irrelevant to the motor. It can be from fuel cells, a battery, or a Mr. Fusion for all it cares.

Comment Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... (Score 1) 218

Wrong. Complaining is fine, but only if it's productive. If it's non-productive, then you're just an annoying whiner.

If your complaining actually serves a purpose, such as getting someone to change, or getting people to choose another vendor, then great, complain away! For instance: "I bought a Chevy car, and the ignition key turned off while I was driving down the freeway, causing me to wreck. I almost died! Here's some links showing how Chevy knew about this design flaw and covered it up to save a little money, and a bunch of people really did die as a result. Don't buy Chevies!" That's useful and productive complaining, warning people away from a dangerous product or vendor.

If your complaining just whines about the current state of affairs, but proposes no solutions and is basically tilting at windmills, and worse there are actual solutions but you refuse to pursue them, then you're just being an annoying whiner. This is generally the case with everyone who complains about Windows 10. They whine and whine and whine, but they keep using it. I'm sorry, if you're not going to do anything to change your situation, you're just like those stupid women who refuse to leave their abusive boyfriends and then even defend him, but then whine "why does he hit me? Why doesn't he love me the way I want to be loved?"

Comment Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? (Score 1) 218

This is a stupid and idiotic post. No, their job is not to deliver a quality product; where do you get that crazy idea?

Moreover, if you really think that's their job, then obviously they're failing at it. So, what are you going to do about it? You're going to keep using their products, and sending them money, right? That means they're succeeding at their job, because they're still "working" and still getting paid. People who fail at their job get fired. If you don't get fired, you must be doing a good enough job for your employer to keep you around. So if you're failing in your job as "employer" (customer actually) to "fire" this poor performing, and actually destructive "employee", then you're the one who's really to blame for being such a terrible employer.

But anyway, you're just completely wrong about what a company's job is. It's to make money, and that's it. If you don't like the company's products, then don't buy them. That's the only power you have over them to do the job you think they should be doing, which is keeping you happy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Asynchronous inputs are at the root of our race problems. -- D. Winker and F. Prosser