Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:I believe you've already found tge problem. (Score 1) 456

This is the problem with your analog headphone jack -- there's no vendor lock-in possible! This grievous error must be stopped.

Apple almost had this going on with the original iPhone... And what could Apple do? ... Apple can make money without lifting a finger now... I can't wait to hear how Apple spins this as being a good thing at the next iPhone announcement in a few months here.

Yeah, Apple sure are horr- wait, what was the summary?

In the Android camp, phones like Lenovo's Moto Z and Moto Z Force and China's LeEco have already scrapped the 3.5mm headphone jack; to listen to music on the company's three latest phones, users need to plug in USB Type-C headphones, go wireless, or use a dongle.

So, Apple has done nothing yet, while Lenovo and LeEco have, and yet all you rant about is how terrible Apple is, and not them. So, which is it: hypocrite, or Android propagandist?

Comment Re:because it's universal (Score 1) 456

That's exactly the problem. The companies want proprietary. Hell, this goes back the earliest Macs, with their unique mouse, keyboard, and printer ports, and their scuzzy drive connectors..

SCSI, or the small computer system interface, was a set of standards created by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), not Apple. You want a unique port? Look at PS/2, created specifically by and for IBM and IBM-compatibles.

Comment Re:Moore's Law ended years ago, for many (Score 1) 76

Depending on the specific problem, with number-crunching big databases you may be running into the limits of Amdahl's Law, not Moore's.

If part of the algorithm is inherently serial (ie, can't be parallelized), then that's going to be the bottleneck no matter how many cores you throw at it (although faster memory and I/O may help). CPU clock speed has been stuck around 2-4 GHz for many years now, throwing more transistors at the problem isn't going to help much. What we need there is not more transistors but faster ones, which means moving away from silcon to e.g. GaAs or micro vacuum tubes or whatever. One 1-THz CPU will blow away 250 4-GHz CPUs (memory bandwidth permitting) because it gets around Amdahl's Law.

Comment Re:the CO2 improvements are minor at best (Score 1) 63

> Gassers make just as much particulate, but it's of the most hazardous type, which means their particulate emissions are actually worse than diesel.

That's only true of direct injected gas engines.

Who told you that? That's bullshit. The only way in which DI gassers are worse than other gassers is that they foul their intake valves which have to be expensively cleaned, sometimes including head removal.

Gasoline also has to be refined more than diesel

This isn't true anymore. Diesel is a highly refined product now also. Clean emissions requires clean and homogeneous input fuel and that means more processing.

Not only is it still true (it still takes less energy to make diesel, it just takes more than it used to) but guess what? Automakers are now asking fuel companies to make higher-octane fuels, over 100 on the scale we use in the USA. That's what they need to make cleaner-burning gasoline engines. So gasoline is actually about to get more expensive, both in real dollars and in energy cost.

That car is a rolling smog bank and you are trying to talk about how your input fuel was renewable? Seriously, have you looked at the emissions standards it was required to conform?

That's irrelevant; mine is running nice and clean. It only smokes when you pin it, which even brand new diesels do. And since it doesn't have a catalyst, it puts out nice big fat soot particles that can be trivially swept out of your lungs by your cilia.

They were a joke in the US and a double joke in Europe. It's far filthier than its contemporary gas cars and really bad compares to any modern car of any sort.

And yet, far superior to anything else in the class sold in 1982.

Comment What makes you think I'm trolling? Losing the arg? (Score 1) 52

It's a fact that over and over again device-specific add-ons are ignored. They wind up in bargain bins whether it's tablet-specific keyboard docks or R.O.B. for the N.E.S. Ignore the lessons of history at your peril. Moto G 2nd owner here, in case you think I'm in love with Samsung or something. Anybody else notice they're now stooping to infomercials?

Comment Re:VISA program is GOOD. H1B is NOT. It is a joke (Score 1) 240

I work for Google and there are constantly great Ph.D. theses where we hire the inventor to integrate their thesis work into our products. Here's an example of an area that can have major impact on our products and at the same time there is typically one person out there (the Ph.D. student) who knows the topic well and understands all small nuances of it.

Google has offices all over the world, so this is a ridiculous argument at best. Even if you did need them to be face to face, there's no need for anything more than a temporary work visa for that purpose. Got any better explanations than that one?

Comment Re:The Verge is 100% wrong (Score 2) 52

Not only is this a viable play-book for Moto, it's exactly what they should do in order to not become part of the "value" market on the clearance shelf.

History has shown us that statistically nobody buys expensive accessories for electronic devices, not least because they are never compatible for long. So no, it's a stupid waste of time. Also, Moto is already part of the value market. They make cheap-ass Motos as tracfones.

Comment Re: Wow... (Score 1) 219

That statement should disqualify you from driving a car.

Right back at you:

While pedestrians are supposed to behave, it's YOUR responsibility to make sure that you never drive in a way that makes it possible for you to run over a pedestrian (or hit other cars, for that matter).

While it's my responsibility to minimize that risk, the law recognizes the impossibility of doing that. It sets specific standards where necessary, such as in the case of motorists passing cyclists in California. In other cases, it is deliberately vague to give leeway specifically for the purpose of assigning fault to the party whose fault it actually is (or for other more malign purposes like selective enforcement, but those are outside the scope of this comment.)

The law recognizes the impossibility of completely eliminating accidents, whether between a vehicle and a vehicle, or a vehicle and a pedestrian. It sets speed limits accordingly, so that even if a pedestrian (or motorist) does something stupid, they will hopefully not die. Let's be clear, though; the law recognizes that physics is a thing, and that a person can change direction more rapidly than a car. We don't make the driver automatically responsible in every situation because if we did, nobody would effectively be able to drive. Instead, we make pedestrians responsible for their behavior in many cases. In most of the US, and apparently in most of the world, jaywalking laws exist which make it illegal to cross the road without consideration for safety. Even in DC, where you don't need to use a crosswalk, it's still explicitly illegal to enter the roadway even in a crosswalk when an oncoming vehicle cannot stop for you. Note that the law does not specify a car traveling at legal speeds, or traveling with the light, et cetera. The driver might well be found at fault in a collision with a pedestrian who stepped out in front of them while speeding, but the pedestrian would still be cited for entering the roadway illegally. The goal of the law is to reduce accidents because they are inconvenient to others, not to be fair.

Oh hell, why am I wasting time. It's not "OK" to hit someone at 25 mph. To wrap it up, I hope you didn't mean what you wrote :)

To wrap it up, you misused quotation marks. I didn't say it was OK to hit someone at 25 mph. You're wasting time because you are an idiot who doesn't understand the argument.

Comment Re:VW needs a bankruptcy "fix" ready (Score 1) 63

Clearly you are confusing VW with Toyota, who are still the world's biggest automaker.

They are neck and neck, and VW employs more people due to all the marques they own.

I can't comment on the rest of your manifesto, other than to say I have no idea why you are so interested in how the Phaeton was destined to be a phailure from the beginning.

It's interesting because it's Ferdinand's fault, like everything else wrong with VW today. Germans love a hardass, though, and that's how they got him in the big chair. And what else is interesting about it is just how spectacularly stupid it was when they already had a car in that space. But what's relevant about it is that they have money to burn.

Slashdot Top Deals

VMS must die!

Working...