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


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

Comment Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 2) 61

First, look who's jumping down throats... Please keep it civil.

I've kept it civil, and I made that comment based on a posting history.

The electoral college was designed to allow electors the freedom to cast votes contrary to the pledge you've mentioned.

So the pledge to vote the way the voters of the state that elected them want them to means nothing. The fact that they are disenfranchising their voters means nothing.

And no, the system was not designed so that the results of other states are intended to influence the electors for anyplace else. Montana electors are not supposed to care what the voters in Oregon or California do. They're Montana's electors. And Ohio's electors are Ohio's, not New York's. Etc. etc. etc.

If you must complain, I recommend you direct your complaints at the actual process

I'm accepting the process. The complaints are directed towards those who think some fictional "popular vote" means something. Or a petition calling for a different result. Or a protest march calling for a different result.

So "boohoo" yourself.

Comment Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 3, Insightful) 61

Why would you characterize what he described as 'subverting' the process?

Because the process is that those electors were elected to vote for a specific person. They pledged to do so when they were selected.

The rules of the process were designed to allow for those scenarios.

What are "those scenarios"? Protests in the streets demanding the overturn of the results? Petitions demanding the same? No, sorry. Those scenarios are not part of the process. We have elections, not mob rule. The "popular vote" cannot be one of those scenarios because there IS no popular vote defined as part of the process. It is a fiction. It is something used by people who lost the actual election to try to get the real results overturned. (And by those who "win" by a huge number as proof of a mandate -- just as silly.)

Interestingly, the states that have introduced penalties for electors who choose to vote their conscience are the ones who are trying to subvert the process.

What utter nonsense. Do you work for the Ministry of Truth? Were you someone Orwell warned us of?

The electors who are saying they will reject the result of their state are being the same hypocrites who claimed they would not support the Republican nominee, after demanding that Trump pledge that HE would support the Republican nominee when they expected him to lose.

Comment Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 4, Insightful) 61

The only election that counts has not occurred.

I realize that you love jumping down my throat for every little thing you can, but if "the only election that counts" has not occurred, then I am absolutely correct in saying that she has not won the only election that counts.

And I am well aware that there are people trying to subvert the process that was accepted by all prior to Election Day, but didn't turn out the way that some people wanted. The losers think they don't need to accept the loss and want the process to change so they win. Petitions have been signed! Protests have been held! Mob rule. How nice.

Comment Great idea! (Score 1) 317

What a great idea! Remove one easy way of allowing personal listening and add stereo speakers so you can play your music or phone conversations at high volume in high quality stereo!

Apple, I think it is, is running an ad with some old guy sitting at the pool who turns the volume up on his iPhone and leaves it blaring on the table next to his lounge chair while he goes up and does a high dive. Thank goodness nobody with a brick handy wants to listen to anything other than the mariachi music at high volume that this guy is playing, or we'd see what it really means to have a thin phone and lithium battery fire.

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. The boom box of the 2020's is on our doorstep. No, in the streets and in the subways and at the park and ...

Comment Re:Bluetooth Headphones (Score 5, Insightful) 317

You can always use Bluetooth headphones.

You can try.

1. The battery goes dead after a short period of time, so then you can't.

2. You are in a WiFi-rich environment, which means you get about a 1' range for your bluetooth. I've actually been in places where even with the phone in my shirt pocket, if I turned my head left or right the signal was lost.

3. You have a smart watch which is linked via bluetooth, in which case you can't link a headphone at the same time (I've tried.)

4. You want to feed the audio to some wired system. (Yes there are bluetooth to jack adapters, but the one I have never seems to have a charged battery, so refer to #1).

Comment Re:Why air gaps? (Score 1) 283

We've known for decades that there was a potential risk.

We've known forever that everything is a potential risk. Calling something a "potential risk" doesn't mean it actually is. And correlation (the first study reported in your link) isn't causation.

I'd also point out that the very first popup at your link was an offer to join the class action suit. Hmmm. A site that wants people to help lawyers make money is talking about research that would entice people to help lawyers make more money. Hmmm. No possible bias there, huh?

Comment Re:Why air gaps? (Score 2) 283

This case will be a touchstone for future generations of EEs, the way the Tacoma Narrows Bridge is for civil engineers and Therac-25 is for software engineers.

And thalidomide for pharma.

We expect miracles from our scientists and then sue them into oblivion when they aren't perfect.

There are currently ads seeking class action participants for a lawsuit about talcum powder. It seems, after decades of use, women can get ovarian cancer if they used it. Who knew? Could anyone predict that?

Comment Dateline 2025 (Score 3, Funny) 131

Dateline 2025: Apple has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Mitsubishi and Ford over alleged violations of Apple intellectual property. The claim is that both Mitsubishi and Ford are infringing on Apple's patents on autonomous vehicles in that the Mitsubishi Allgonica and Ford Frobnulator have rounded corners and four wheels. Spokesmen for Mitsubishi and Ford were unavailable for comment.

Comment Re:No possible problem with this at all. (Score 1) 64

Counter-example: Walk along a school road, and look for the SCHOOL marking in the street. From the side, it's so distorted that it's very hard to make out what it says.

That's not a counter-example. The school marking is distorted so that it appears to be normal text TO THE DRIVER. It's text, we're used to seeing it as text.

But a zebra crossing has a fixed GROUND image, and drivers are most used to seeing it from that perspective. Just what is the "normal" perspective for that marking which is only ever seen from the side as it is painted on the ground? There is no other "normal" perspective. It needs to be seen as it would be were it on the ground, because that is the only way it is ever seen.

Comment Re:No possible problem with this at all. (Score 1) 64

The problem is perspective. The road is flat, so what's projected on it will not appear as the same shape for someone looking on it from elsewhere.

No. If you project what appears to be a "zebra crossing" onto the street, it has to appear on the street in the same place as a real zebra crossing for the driver to see it as such.

There are perspective issues involved, but they exist for both the projection and the viewer. You cannot simply project an image of a zebra crossing onto the street, you have to distort it to take the surface into account. And the viewer's brain will take care of the reverse perspective problem, taking the distorted regular striped pattern as seen on the retinal surface and converting it into "zebra crossing" in the brain.

This is one of the reasons why a HUD would be a better solution to this problem. Not only will the info be invisible (and thus not distracting) to outside observers, it is a much simpler problem to manage the perspective and transformations necessary to project the correct data.

Perform this thought experiment. You are in a large lecture hall. There is a computer projector displaying a circle on the screen at the front of the room. The projector electronics have taken the angles into account and distorted the incoming video signal so that the displayed image is a circle on the screen. Now move about the room so your perspective of the screen changes. The image on your retina will change based on your angle to the screen, but your brain will still see a circle.

Comment No possible problem with this at all. (Score 3, Interesting) 64

projects a stop sign onto the road out ahead.

Or projects a different sign. Other vehicles see that sign and assume it must be right, ignoring the posted stop sign (or other traffic control device) and causing an accident. I see absolutely no risk in each vehicle creating it's own moving traffic control system.

Especially when it starts projecting "zebra crossings" into the street. That's going to create a mess and be quite a process here in Oregon where there is a crosswalk at every intersection. What fun, when a pedestrian sees the oncoming car projecting crosswalk markings so they assume the driver is aware of it and steps out into the street assuming the driver is already planning on stopping. Hilarity ensues.

Comment Re:Top down decision (Score 1) 258

If I don't use cash, it doesn't mean you can't. ... it doesn't mean you can't function on a cash basis.

If it is a cash-less society, you can't. You aren't just talking about what you can do, you're talking about what other people cannot do.

Are you arguing that I should structure my financial dealings to be most convenient to you?

I don't give a tinker's damn whether you use cash or not. You want electronic payment systems everywhere, that's fine with me. My being able to use cash says NOTHING about how you have to pay for anything. But you are arguing that I should structure my dealings to be more convenient for you. You can't deal with cash, but instead of limiting yourself to wanting to use electronic systems, you argue we need to go cash-less as a society.

I say you can do whatever you want; you say I shouldn't be able to use cash. So, tell me again who is trying to structure how other people manage their financial dealings?

Slashdot Top Deals

Egotist: A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me. -- Ambrose Bierce