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 Re:Yes but (Score 5, Interesting) 378

Thought experiment. Let's suppose you're a CIVIL engineer -- the type of engineer the regulations are intended to target. You're on vacation in Oregon, and you notice a serious structural fault in a bridge which means that it is in imminent danger of collapse.

Under this interpretation of the term "practice engineering" you wouldn't be able to tell anyone because you're not licensed to practice engineering in Oregon. In fact anyone who found an obvious fault -- say, a crack in the bridge -- would be forbidden to warn people not to use it until it had been looked at.

Which is ridiculous. Having and expressing an opinion, even a professionally informed opinion, isn't "practicing engineering". Practicing engineering means getting paid -- possibly in some form other than money. At the very least it means performing the kind of services for which engineers are normally paid.

A law which prevented people from expressing opinions wouldn't pass constitutional muster unless it was "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling public interest" -- that's the phrase the constitutional lawyers use when talking about laws regulating constitutionally protected activities. In this case the public interest is safety, which would be served by a law which prevented unqualified people from falsely convincing people that a structure was safe. But there is no compelling interest in preventing an engineer from warning the public about something he thinks is dangerous or even improper.

So if the law means what they claim it to mean, it's very likely unconstitutional.

Comment Defining sports (Score 1) 247

Out of curiosity, how would you define 'sports', and what is it about, say, competitive LoL or StarCraft that doesn't meet that definition?

The answer is fairly straightforward though perhaps unsatisfyingly ambiguous. If you say you play sports to someone, nobody is going to ask which computer game you play. They are going to be thinking something involving gross motor skills 99.9999% of the time. Ergo it isn't a sport under commonly accepted uses of the term. That might change in time but ask 100 people today if computer gaming is a sport and the answer will overwhelmingly be no. QED it isn't a sport.

If you want to get pedantic about definitions you can make all sorts of activities that aren't widely regarded as sports fit a given definition but I think that serves little purpose. Poker is on ESPN but is it a sport? Few would say so. That's not to say poker or computer games aren't fully deserving of respect but calling them a sport is something most people will not agree with. So called eSports are their own thing but saying they are sports a bit of appropriation of a term that doesn't fit. Like how soy milk is marketed as "milk" when in fact it is actually a type of juice. It conflates two concepts in order to profit from the confusion. Getting overly pedantic about the definitions merely leads to pointless arguments. If you want to call competitive StarCraft a "sport" I'm not going to call you foolish and I get what you are saying but I still don't think of it as a sport and neither will most other people.

Of course there are differences between even the "traditional" sports. If you watch the Olympics you'll see two major categories. There are competitions with objective criteria (i.e. track) and those with subjective criteria (i.e. gymnastics). The former determines a winner through objectively measurable criteria such as who can run a course in the least amount of time. The later typically judges aesthetics and in practical terms are simply dance competitions. Nothing wrong with either one but in some important ways they aren't quite the same thing and one could argue they might be deserving of different labels.

Comment Altitude training (Score 1) 247

In other sports, runners who live at sea-level are disadvantaged in competition against runners who live high up in the mountains.

Actually not true. High altitude training is most effective when you aren't at high altitude all the time. It's the people who can train at altitude for periods of time and then return to low altitudes that see the best results.

The life of athletes is full of unfairness.

Which has what exactly to do with this conversation? I have mad respect for top gamers but they aren't athletes in any widely accepted use of the word.

Comment Homeless (Score 1) 247

Instead of homicide, you just have to deal with ridiculous amounts of homeless people that make Hawaii resemble a third world country, sleeping on sidewalks, defecating and peeing everywhere.

I've been to Hawaii a number of times and not in the tourist trap parts either. Doesn't remotely fit my anecdotal observations. There are more homeless people in Chicago than in Hawaii.

Comment Tiny minority (Score 0) 247

For an actual tournament with significant money on the table, if they need that improved ping they'll simply have to travel to attain it.

You do realize that describes a tiny minority of the people who actually play any given game, right? Most people just want to play and compete with their "friends". Less fun to do that if you are experiencing a significant handicap even for casual play.

Comment Re:AI killing industry (Score 1) 120

Except in a real movie, you wouldn't just take the audio stream straight from the algorithm; you'd have some kind of highly skilled specialist tweaking it to get the exact effect the director wanted.

A combination of art and science will eventually be able to produce completely convincing audio forgeries, very likely long before science alone will be able to.

Comment Easily impressed (Score 1) 163

Featureless except for a generic tablet screen in the middle. No awe-inspiring gauge cluster. No pleasing lines and curves.

You find gauge clusters "awe-inspiring"? You need to get out more my friend if that really impresses you.

What the hell were they thinking? This is Tesla, damnit. They should be making a car that blows you away when you sit behind the wheel.

Have you sat behind the wheel of one? How do you know it won't blow you away? Given that the car hasn't entered production yet you seem awfully quick to judge...

Comment Strained arguments (Score 1) 163

Yes, supercharging is much worse for the environment than regular charging.

That might be one of the most strained arguments I've ever heard. Talk about missing the big picture...

And supercharging isn't as energy efficient in itself either - the heat loss is larger than with slower charging.

Even if we stipulate that is true, it still better than burning fossil fuels to move a vehicle. A lot better. Just because the heat loss is some arbitrary amount larger when charging quickly doesn't make it a bad idea. Slow charging is only useful in a garage overnight when you aren't going to use the car for many hours. Any heat losses for rapid charging are more than made up for by not burning gasoline/diesel.

In countries that produce a good part of the electricity from coal and oil, that's not a good thing.

As opposed to burning the oil directly in a car? Weird logic you have there. An internal combustion engine is hugely inefficient and pollutes badly and you are arguing that a few supercharger stations are somehow a bad thing?

Comment Battery swaps are impractical (Score 2) 163

Instead of pulling into a supercharger and spending up to an hour recharging, couldn't they just pop my battery out and put a fully pre-charged on back in?

Technically possible but economically infeasible. Tesla's were designed to allow this and it proved to be economically not viable. They had a program and shut it down. For it to really work you would have to have a standard sized battery pack, widely used, with a customer base far larger than Tesla is likely to achieve in the near future to justify the cost of the infrastructure. To understate things greatly, swapping out a car battery pack is a wee bit harder than changing a laptop or cell phone battery. It requires significant and expensive automation to do quickly, not just a burly guy with a wrench and a lift. For it to make any kind of economic sense you need a critical mass of EV owning customers which we are in no danger of reaching in the next 5-10 years at minimum.

Realistically, fast recharging is a better solution in the long run due to network effects. It's going to be nigh-impossible to get car makers to agree on a standard sized battery pack and battery mounting system. Unless you have a substantial network of battery swap stations available (which we don't) there is no added value to swapping the batteries over existing infrastructure. It's comparatively easy to incrementally improve the charging infrastructure for fast charging. It's almost economically impossible to build a useful battery swap network incrementally. Worse, if fast (less than 20 min) recharging ever becomes viable any investment in a battery swap network would become instantly unprofitable.

So does Tesla follow Apple on the battery replacement issue?

Are you seriously comparing the $12000+ battery pack on a car designed to last the better part of a decade to the one in your cell phone? No, Tesla is not following Apple's lead on batteries. That would not be wise of them nor practical.

Slashdot Top Deals

"We Americans, we're a simple people... but piss us off, and we'll bomb your cities." -- Robin Williams, _Good Morning Vietnam_