Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Re:No possible problem with this at all. (Score 1) 61

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) 61

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) 251

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?

Comment Re:Top down decision (Score 1) 251

Where do you get force, or even the threat thereof, from what he said?

Let's see. If you do away with cash, then you FORCE anyone who wants to purchase something to use this cashless payment system. And I think it is fair to say that in modern society, everyone at some point has to purchase things.

So, "force", in the common usage of "being required to" is quite applicable, and is the correct definition in this context. That's where I get "force" from. From Google:

2. make (someone) do something against their will. "she was forced into early retirement"

And clearly everyone *doesn't* prefer cash,

Who said they did? Where did you get THAT from?

Comment Re:Nickles and pennies. (Score 1) 251

All we need are quarters and dollar coins.

So, does that 7 cent washer I buy from the hardware store get rounded down to 0 (FREE!) or up to 25 cents (too expensive!)?

and keep the new dollar coins about the physical size of the present quarters.

The current dollar coins are already about the size of the quarter. You can already carry those if you wish, you know, without mandating a change to the whole system. And you can throw your pennies, nickels and dimes away when you get them if you dislike them so much. You can also throw those smelly one dollar bills away, or better, put them in the ubiquitous donation or tip jars next to the cash register. Or simply ask for your dollar change in quarters.

Comment Re:Top down decision (Score 2) 251

I disagree, I want a cashless society. ... At the moment I often find myself with no actual cash on hand because I can *almost* live my life without it.

So you want to force everyone else to do away with what they prefer (cash) because it is too inconvenient for you to remember to carry any with you? That's what "cashless" means -- "no cash".

Life would be easier without physical money.

Most of us have been able to figure out how to deal with cash, and some of us prefer not dealing with large multinational corporations to funnel money around the planet, taking their cut off the top. The fact you can't figure out how to deal with cash is not sufficient justification to do away with cash for the rest of us. It IS justification for having cashless payment systems, however, and there seem to be a lot of them in use today.

Comment Re:Top down decision (Score 3, Insightful) 251

My point is that this assertion is false.

The assertion is quite true. The fact that you enjoy the convenience of paying by card doesn't mean you want a cashless society, does it? You just want to be able to pay by card. As we can all pretty much see for ourselves, being able to pay with plastic doesn't require a cashless society. It's not an either/or situation.

Unless you do, as you imply by using yourself as an example of someone who wants a cashless society, actually want everyone else to lose the ability to pay by cash, in which case the answer to the question:

Whose life are you suggesting that I am sabotaging exactly?

is "everyone who values their money and privacy more than your convenience."

Comment Re:Top down decision (Score 1) 251

Like I said, NO I AM NOT paying 2-3% more, because my price is not lower IF I PAID CASH.

Some places offer a discount for cash. The shopkeepers, too, do not like to pay the vig to the credit card companies. One local restaurant simply doesn't take credit cards.

But in places that do not have the discount you are still wrong. EVERYONE is paying more to cover the fee for those whose convenience is worth more to them than their money or privacy.

Comment Re:Sometimes a duck is just a duck ... (Score 1) 123

Preserving our cultural history

Well, see, that means you assume that old TV shows are "cultural history" and I don't. The fact that there was a chimp co-host of a morning TV show might be "culturally significant", but digitizing every program he was in doesn't add to that history in any significant way.

Historical preservation of buildings is a burden put upon the owners, not the government. I find it rather intrusive to have a government that tells the owner of a building that they cannot replace the old energy inefficient windows they have with modern ones because it won't "look like it should". Why should the government tell anyone what kind of windows they can have, especially when it's an improvement that will save the owner money AND help the environment?

Comment Re:Yep. (Score 1) 104

but letting you filter out the more trolly/offensive stuff if you want to.

There is no system here to filter out what you think is "more trolly/offensive". You can only filter out what other people who have been given mod points have marked as "troll" or "offtopic" or a couple of other negatives. I don't recall "offensive" being one of them. In any case, you can filter out what other people don't want you to see, or select things that they do want you to see, which is different than filtering truly trolly or offensive material. Downmods are made for all kinds of reasons, as are upmods, not limited to the specified criteria.

But perhaps that only works because Slashdot isn't a political site,

It isn't supposed to be one.

and so you get mods from both sides of most issues here.

Once a post has been modded down so it is not seen except by those who go looking for such things it is unlikely to come back into view. This gives a big advantage, and a resulting bias in what you see, to the negative mod points in hiding comments.

Comment Re:Sometimes a duck is just a duck ... (Score 1) 123

An afternoon drama for children didn't seem all that important culturally so Dr Who episodes that could be making money for the BBC were thrown away.

As much as I like Dr. Who, I could never honestly claim that every episode was "important culturally". What, "look how culturally relevant those worms in the green slime are!" Now, the "Upperclass Twit of the Year Award" contest might have been a statement about British culture of the day, but hey! We've already got all the Monty Python episodes available -- because people would pay for them.

To be honest, there was no market for Dr. Who episodes before the VCRs became ubiquitous. BBC didn't imagine making more money off of them when they were thrown away. How do we know that? Because now there is a market for old shows and we have DVDs of the complete series of Dukes of Hazard, as just one example. And I already have a DVD of several episodes of Do Not Adjust to go with my box set of MP.

I think the issue is not whether such things should be digitized to protect them, but who pays for it. Using lottery funds is not the right source. And trying to paint it as a grand attempt at improving diversity in film is, well, silly.

Comment Re:Rejoice living in a free country. (Score 2) 1042

I support Twitter having the choice to make any rules they want within the law.

Yes. The real issue in this story is not that Twitter is free to make their own rules for their own service, but that the American Bar Association defines "hate speech" as "speech that offends". Rational people would be offended by the ABA's definition, so the ABA is itself guilty of hate speech.

I don't consider it hate speech to offend, and insulting people who share the "other trait" of "being criminals" isn't, either. In fact, just insulting people shouldn't be.

And all of its users are free to stop using their service

I walked away from them the day they started dumping "sponsored tweets" into my client. Didn't lose anything at all.

And lastly i'm thankful for a free market where all kinds of competing services can take up the slack when Twitter engineers their own failure.

Won't happen. Those who walk away from Twitter because they object to Twitter's rules will figure out they don't need a Twitter-alike, and there will be enough people who seek a place where they think they won't be offended by anything anyone says to keep Twitter alive forever. Counting the number of the latter would be like counting the number of snowflakes in a blizzard.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. - Andy Finkel, computer guy

Working...