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

 



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

Comment Re:Reduced OS for short term gains. (Score 1) 46

In Android at least, only one application can be running at the same time (no background processing unless you program a service for your app)

Bollocks.

And the rest of what you say has nothing to do with Android or ChromeOS. You can have access to root in both. Android devices generally have it disabled but it can be enabled - of course, even CyanogenMod discourages root access these days, as it shouldn't be necessary. ChromeOS? Off by default, but every ChromeBook let's you reconfigure ChromeOS to allow root if you desperately want it. As for "Spyware", it's entirely up to you whether you use Google's services or not.

And none of your objections have anything to do with the original point. You're complaining about the UI disabling certain features. The underlying operating system has those features. And, frankly, easy access to root was something that Windows 95 gave you by default that NT made a little harder to get...

Comment Re:No they aren't denying it (Score 1) 576

Population overall of what?

The U.S. is in a somewhat unique position because it's basicly the only country where climate change denial is not just a fringe position. Everywhere else, Climate change denial is at best some contrarian position for people who are contrarian to about anything.

Consequentially, in a map of where climate change will help or hinder food production, the United States is just about the only area that is supposed to come out ahead with a warmer climate. People here keep blaming religion, but I bet that the real reason is money. Those with money and power feel that they are better positioned with the change in climate, or at least feel that trying to do something about it will harm their position. Oil and coal would be the biggest losers and the people behind them are probably trying to stall to sell as much as they can while quietly diversifying their ownership into other fields.

Comment Re:Crucial question (Score 1) 46

What's interesting about it? Netbook/Tablet hybrids are widely available already! Most of them come with Windows 10, but you can install anything you like on them.

But, FWIW, Chromebooks generally have a feature, sometimes implemented in hardware, sometimes in software, that disables the TPM module so you can either access the operating system as a developer, or wipe the OS completely and put on a more usual desktop system.

Comment Re:Reduced OS for short term gains. (Score 1) 46

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but both Android and ChromeOS (presumably meaning the OS under discussion here too) are full blown modern operating systems with networking, permissions, memory protection, etc. They are both on a par with Unix in terms of features. They both, however, have user interfaces that block user access to certain features of the operating system.

This is nothing like the jump from 95 to NT.

Comment Re:Paying customers and age appropriate roles (Score 1) 226

Is it possible to fix? Maybe. Won't be easy though. The key would be proving that age discrimination is actually harmful to the economic outcome for a film. Challenging case to make since they don't let a lot of people who aren't white and young (if women) into movies to test the theory.

I suspect it's also going to be a challenging case to make because it's wrong. They simply also make movies which appeal to that audience, which is not interested in big special effects and whatnot. Different audience, different budget, different casting. And different release strategy as well; many of those movies are direct-to-video.

Comment Re:And IMDB cares about this *why*, exactly? (Score 1) 226

No reason those jobs have be in Santa Monica though. Or anywhere else in CA. Move them to Seattle like the rest of the company.

Maybe this Google query will give you a hint as to why they have an office in Santa Monica.

Hint: It isn't because top networking specialists and PHP programmers are best found in Los Angeles.

Comment Re:Too much money... (Score 1) 123

Uber is trying desperately to use up all that money they were given based on their (relatively simple) app. An app that they can't even make profitable. Apparently they lost around $1.2B in the first half of the year.

If they don't use it up, there's a risk they might eventually be asked to give it back.

Comment Re:Scale and power vs weight (Score 1) 123

Are you seriously arguing that because we've done it with an RC airplane that it is a trivial exercise to scale up to the size where it can plausibly carry humans safely? Yeah it doesn't work like. The energy costs to get aloft do not scale linearly with size. The bigger the vehicle + cargo the more fuel you need to lift PLUS you need more fuel to lift the extra fuel. This places upper limits on what can practically get aloft and how long you can stay there.

Several outfits have now demonstrated an electric multicopter large enough to carry a human for twenty minutes.

Plus even if you deal with the technical problems getting it to be economically viable is a MUCH harder problem. Helicopters have been a thing for a long time but they remain hugely expensive and problematic for use by the General Public.

It doesn't have to be affordable to every tom, dick and asshole. It doesn't have to be viable everywhere in the country. It only has to be viable in a large enough market to afford a few such aircraft. Also, helicopter air taxi services are a thing. People with more money than you or I regularly use them.

Comment Re:The poor economics of flying cars (Score 1) 123

1) Physics. The energy requirements to get something the weight of a human aloft are considerable. The fuel costs alone would make it economically prohibitive.

Show your math. I'm sure someone would be willing to pay at least that part.

A VTOL aircraft is necessarily going to be more expensive than a standard automobile because it is more complicated and thus more expensive. Even the simplest imaginable version would be far more expensive than what anyone but the super wealthy could afford.

They don't actually make any sense unless they are autonomous, because you're just having to pay the fuel penalty for the pilot — who can reasonably be replaced by a computer the size of your testicle.

None of the infrastructure for any plausible flying vehicle has been built excepting for airports.

Well, that is most of the required infrastructure. You can use their radio navigation beacons.

The cost to change this would be astronomical. Can you imagine trying to land in the parking lot of your local Walmart without the prop wash endangering everyone around you?

We're talking about a lightweight vehicle by definition. It won't take much of a rooftop pad for it to land on.

A much bigger problem is that you really need to not have a pilot, and there's no FAA framework whatsoever that would permit transporting passengers by drone.

Comment Re:VTOL planes a/k/a Widowmakers (Score 1) 123

There's a reason that both the Harrier and Osprey are called the Widowmaker.

I've heard that about the Osprey, but not the Harrier.

I doubt a commercial VTOL Uber plane will be a reality in my lifetime due to liability concerns.

Why not? People can use helicopters in cities, and they're dangerous as heck.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage. -- Lazarus Long

Working...