Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Comment Previous estimates (Score 1) 139

"Previous estimates ranged within 100 million years, all the way out to 200 million years after the solar system's creation, not quite 4.6 billion years ago." is misleading. It sounds like before this research we had no clue. Scientific consensus has been that it's roughly 4.5 billion years old for decades now. As a lazy check, the Wikipedia article on the moon has stated the 4.5 billion figure based on a source from NASA since September 2002, and likely wasn't in there previously because Wikipedia was pretty new at that point. This research dials in the precision and provides independent confirmation.

Comment Re:Keep it original... (Score 1) 304

This is a good question, so I'm gonna reply even though this is days old: In 1997 when the Special Edition was made, editing was still mostly done by analog processes; physical cutting apart film and putting it back together. The technology to make a digital copy and manipulate that entirely existed, but Lucas chose not to use it. This wasn't entirely because he was an ass; the digitization process was still very nacent. And if you make an analog copy of the master, to use as your re-release master, then the rerelease ends up looking lower in quality than the original. That said, there are plenty of techniques that can be used to recover the original even if Lucasfilm destroyed theirs. You can take multiple preserved theatrical releases, scan them frame by frame, and perform digital merge operations that after processing, produces something that's so close to perfect that only massive audiophiles and their photography equivalents will have any reason to bitch.

Comment Re:IMAX (Score 1) 142

The frame-area and screen-size really were the most important aspects of IMAX. It was massively larger than the Todd-AO 70mm film frame, and the tall screen that filled the entire range-of-vision was the thing that was able to fool the mind. IMAX 70mm has roughly an equivalent to 12K resolution. Compared to that, "Digital IMAX" is a joke, at somewhere between 2K and 3K, the higher end only if you believe the hype. All of the other subtle aspects of theatre requirements aren't the same in Digital IMAX; to support that would be too expensive for theatre owners (who mostly profit from concession sales.) It really was a straight up weakening of the name. But oh well; I doubt it's going to last in its current form for very long.

Comment Re:Finally Ford see the future. (Score 1) 432

The advancement is just that the US didn't previously care about turbocharging gasoline vehicles or light-duty trucks & SUVs. Europe has been into it for ages because gas/diesel is so much more expensive there. When demand finally clicked in the US, Ford went to the Germans and had them tell us how it's all done. So yeah, not really an advancement unless you think domestically. Globally, it's just catch-up.

Comment Re:Finally Ford see the future. (Score 1) 432

I'm under the impression that a major reason why light-truck mileage hasn't improved has been economic reasons. Most of the demand for light-trucks was shifted over to SUVs for tax reasons. Other countries have light-trucks but, for the US market, last I checked, no one is making much of anything for quite awhile now. And there's no incentive to work towards higher efficiency. If there was a demand for a light truck with higher efficiency, as you sort of hint, one of the major possibilities is in weight reduction by changing to different alloys or composites. But since pretty much no one has made a high-volume production automobile using a composite chassis, and making that happen would require tens of billions of dollars and many more years of development; I'm pretty sure that light trucks in the US are not gonna be the first category slated for that experiment.

Comment Re:Fuck off, shit is thin enough already. (Score 1) 73

Try to understand, the Journalist only mentioned "Hey this could make stuff smaller/lighter/thinner" because he is a twit who is trying to explain the potential benefits of information he got in a press release he didn't understand about a paper he didn't read to a bunch of other twits that the publisher presumes is gonna be the reader-base. The fact that processing can be offloaded to the memory has nothing to do with the ability to make better wearable tech, and the original authors never suggested anything even close to this; because the original authors aren't complete morons.

Comment What a letdown (Score 1) 167

This summary got me all excited for the idea of a company being brave enough to decide that thickness is not as critical as Apple marketing tries to push, only to reveal that it is a design compromise needed to support a completely useless feature. It's fantastic to support 4k displays on a laptop, but a 4k integrated monitor on anything but a mammoth laptop serves no benefit. All things equal, the only way to visibly see the difference on a 15'' laptop screen is to crank up the brightness and jam your eye so close to the screen that you're now awkwardly hunched over, and can only see a tiny portion of the screen. Because the typical use-case of laptops is in using the integrated keyboard, you are bound by the ergonomic fact that the screen is going to be a comfortable arm-length from the eyes. Save 4k resolution for things like VR headsets and large external monitors. And the only time you're going to be using either, you're also gonna have an outlet, so it doesn't matter. You'd only want battery powered 4k if someone actually managed to get wireless display standardized and working well, or if VR takes off in such a huge way that we're all strapping computers to our back and walking around in augmented reality. Neither of these things are going to happen in the next few years, so there's zero point in buying a laptop that's supposedly future-proofed in that manner.

Comment Re:Have we all forgotten how things are played? (Score 1) 267

Slashdot comment sections teeter on a bit of a razor-edge, and have particularly-so for a couple years now (I think Dice coming in and CommanderTaco leaving are two commonly mentioned causes for this shift). If people don't move in quick and point out major flaws, topics of this sort can easily turn into a board full of people who didn't RTFA circlejerking each-other.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 267

Some companies failed. Other companies were Tesla Motors, and solar roofs, and the first US nuclear power plant in decades. And even the companies that did end up failing, they still gave lots of Americans jobs in fields like research, engineering, logistics, and management even if they didn't turn out to be life-long careers. The nonviable ventures are _supposed_ to fold; and you tend to only know which venture is nonviable by spending money and doing research. I'm not saying it was the greatest job creator or greatest environmental effort ever pushed by a president, but it was a more fruitful effort than you're describing.

Comment Re:really? (Score 1) 267

Sort of, only completely different. One is actually enthusiastically taking credit, and the other was a gaffe. Trump explicitly took credit for this deal, and has since on separate occasions repeated taking credit. Gore said a one-time minor gaffe in wording ("During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.") during an interview answering a question that had him rolling off a list of his domestic initiatives history. He was trying to talk about the so-called Gore-bill that funded computing research and technology in 1991. That bill that Gore got through congress helped to pay for the development of Mosaic, the first web-browser and precursor to Netscape Navigator. So yeah, if not for that money, we might all be using that goofy French Minitel system and everything would be glued to the phone company.

Comment Re:Great news! (Score 1) 267

I've been seeing this whole Obama-golfing circlejerk more and more lately, and this comment finally made me get around to looking it up. According to CBS and many other sources, he played his 300th round of golf in office on August 7th. When you do the math on that, on average, he plays a round a little less than once every 9 days. Of course it doesn't really work that way, he plays more often when on vacation. So yeah, the guy does apparently enjoy golfing, but the whole "too busy golfing to accomplish anything" narrative is not even remotely deserved. Presidents tend to have close to 80-hour work-weeks, and golfing is one of the few times a president is able to go outside, and the golf-cart is closest most presidents are able to get to driving a car. Eisenhower apparently played twice as much Golf as Obama has, and Ike didn't even have a Blackberry.

Obama has also taken fewer vacation days than most recent presidents; although it's a bit of a weird concept. All presidents still work a ton on these vacations. So instead of "vacation", much of it is "same job, different scenery". There are lots of records that prove all this, for all presidents.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The medium is the massage." -- Crazy Nigel

Working...