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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Budget and Timelines (Score 3, Informative) 256

When I say that over-regulation, discord between the NRC and ASME, NIMBY trolls, and congressional oversight cause cost and lead time issues, I don't mean that energy companies are trying to bypass safety regulations to accelerate building - there are literally too many people who don't know enough about nuclear plants in decision-making positions.

True, but on the other hand, I'd argue that Watts Bar 2 is an example of ignoring modern safety standards to accelerate building.

If I took a house that was 80% built in the early 1980s and tried to finish building it today, they'd literally make me tear it down, because it would be essentially impossible to retrofit all of the additional braces inside the walls that are required for earthquake safety, not to mention that the plumbing wouldn't be of a material that's legally allowed to be used now, the electrical wiring probably wouldn't be up to code, and even the foundation might have to be dug out and replaced. Yet they've allowed a forty-year-old nuclear reactor design to be brought online that doesn't come close to meeting modern design standards for things like passive safety.

To be fair, TVA has patched the design to mitigate some of the more serious risks based on lessons learned in Fukushima, but even still, it seems completely insane to me that they were allowed to continue building this reactor instead of being told to tear down everything but the outer shell and start over. IMO, this should have been at least a third-generation reactor, if not a III+, not an ancient second-generation design. At some point, they should stop allowing new reactors to be built using old designs, and for second-generation designs, that cutoff date should have been a couple of decades ago, give or take....

Comment Re:COURAGE (Score 1) 305

My point was that it's inconvenient to have a platform that lacks standard I/O merely because of a new standard that's currently exclusive to a handful of computer monitors. Most people don't use HDMI with monitors. They use it with TVs, where HDMI is the standard; not a standard; the standard.

The thing is, they just added HDMI for compatibility four years back, concurrent with adding mini-DisplayPort, which could be adapted to HDMI, which means that the only reason for them to have added it was for easier compatibility with TVs. If it made sense to add HDMI just a couple of years ago and doesn't make sense to keep HDMI now, there's definitely something being smoked, but it isn't by me.

Comment Re:COURAGE (Score 1) 305

The whole concept is fundamentally flawed by design. We won't see TVs take USB-C as an input on a broad scale any time soon, because there's a huge installed base of equipment that standardized on HDMI back when Apple was still arguing about whether FireWire was better than USB. When you're manufacturing equipment with a life expectancy measured in decades rather than the three-year replacement cycle for computers and cell phones, backwards compatibility is an absolute requirement. So any transition from HDMI to USB-C, if that's even possible, will take at least 1-2 decades before it is complete. Until then, we're stuck with adapters.

Is it a good idea to make USB-C available? Yes. Is it a good idea to make it possible to pass video over USB-C? Yes. Is it the right time to ditch HDMI compatibility? Heck, no.

Comment Re:COURAGE (Score 1) 305

wouldn't it be nicer if you could just go in a hotel room and attach your laptop via hdmi cable thats already in the hotel room(for tv box) to connect your laptop to it?

I've never seen a hotel that had HDMI cables. Meeting rooms, sure, but not hotel rooms. Heck, half the time, you're lucky if you don't have to ask the front desk to get the factory remote so you can have an input button. And in meeting rooms, you can safely expect the adapters to start showing up, permanently attached to cables with metal straps.

"but Apple's inclusion of an SD card slot, slow as it is, has been a significant driving force in pushing camera companies to move to SD instead of CF, and has resulted in standardization that otherwise would not have happened." -- okay I give up you are full waist deep in the RDF already if you believe this really and not for example reasons such as sd cards are smaller and there's this class of devices that shipped by the BILLIONS that uses them. cameras don't matter jack shit.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. A lot of companies started putting SD card slots into laptops, including Apple, and that was a major driving force in killing off the half dozen competing standards that existed prior to that. The point is that where Apple goes, the rest of the laptop manufacturers tend to go.

Comment Re:COURAGE (Score 1) 305

And as far as "listening to customers" goes, I think that Apple actually has a better track record of that than most. People hated scroll-bar direction-changes. Apple said "You can now have it either way".

Yeah, except that we hated it internally long before the public hated it, yet it didn't become an option until people screamed publicly. Apple's culture often behaves like a cult of personalities, where people blindly continue down the path chosen by a decision-maker even when dozens of people think they're wrong. IMO, the failure to accept internal criticism and adapt is Apple's biggest flaw, and if anything will be its downfall, it will be that.

Comment Re:No MagSafe would be a step backwards (Score 1) 305

I like bashing on Apple as much as the next guy, but how often does everyone else trip on their cables that removing the MagSafe charger equates to the almost mandatory need to replace the laptop before it's useful life is over?

It only takes once. The cost of replacing a shattered screen is a sizable percentage of the cost of the laptop.

Comment Re:The answer is no because... (Score 1) 131

Your reality distortion field is showing. I suspect Samsung is probably the only cell phone manufacturer that makes its own batteries. There aren't very many decent battery manufacturers out there. But even if every cell phone manufacturer makes their own batteries, and even if Samsung gets special treatment, independent testing of the batteries in isolation would not have uncovered this problem.

Yes, the Samsung SDI batteries were the first ones that caught fire, but the full recall happened after ATL batteries (different manufacturer) started catching fire, too. ATL batteries are used in countless iPhone devices, and those aren't catching fire, so for your statement to be correct:

  • The Samsung batteries would have to have been defective.
  • The ATL batteries designed to Samsung's capacity and size specifications would also have to have been defective in a way that no other ATL batteries are.
  • Samsung would have to have been the sole tester responsible for testing both manufacturers' batteries, and would have to have deliberately falsified the test results on both.

That seems very, very, very unlikely. Possible? Sure. But likely? Not remotely.

Based on the facts as I understand them, I think it's safe to say Samsung botched their charge circuit design, resulting in overcharging that quickly damaged the batteries, eventually causing them to fail catastrophically, and that the presumed flaw in Samsung's batteries was a red herring. The ATL batteries just survived slightly more abuse before undergoing self-immolation, which means they're a slightly safer battery when abused. With that said, neither of them were safe for use in that particular device as designed, and both are probably safe when used with a charge circuit that works correctly.

Comment Re:As much as I dislike Trump ... (Score 4, Insightful) 407

And yet time and again Clinton is used to point out this or that even though he hasn't been president for well over a decade.

Make your mind up. If the lies and criminal acts of Bush and Cheney can't be used in a discussion than neither can Bill Clinton.

And no, crimes of past president's are not irrelevant. They are very relevant since they show the hypocrisy of people who will excuse those crimes but suddenly become appalled when someone else does the exact same thing. If you didn't consider it a crime then you can't consider it a crime now.

You can't have it both ways hypocrite.

Comment Re:No MagSafe would be a step backwards (Score 1) 305

MagSafe 2 would be adequate if it were in the middle of a cable instead of in a position to get knocked loose by your lap. And a MagSafe connection even a few inches into the cable would be just as good as a MagSafe connection on the device.

You readily admit that the MagSafe connector can be knocked free by your lap, yet you think moving it to the cable would be just as good? What exactly do you think would happen when you apply that same force to a connector that plugs in to the laptop?

Nothing. Connectors are designed to handle a certain amount of force in an upwards or downwards direction. Any connector that can't handle this is fundamentally flawed by design. The original MagSafe was much better at not disconnecting. Only MagSafe 2 is hopelessly inadequate (because the magnets are too small).

The purpose of MagSafe is not to prevent damage to the jack or the cable. The purpose is to ensure that when you trip over the cable, it doesn't pull the ultra-light laptop off the table, causing it to shatter when it hits the floor.

Putting it a few inches down the cable will move the disconnection point away from the laptop itself to a point where it won't be pressed against your leg, and thus where the MagSafe connector being as thick as the machine won't matter. But the breakaway force would still be roughly the same, and far smaller than the amount of force needed to pull the laptop off of the table. Thus, it would still serve its primary purpose.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Marriage is like a cage; one sees the birds outside desperate to get in, and those inside desperate to get out." -- Montaigne