Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:Too bad for men. (Score 1) 108

Let's help make it a bit clearer. Let's say you're the average US male height, weight and build - 176cm / 59" and 83kg/184lbs and a bench press of 165lbs. Picture an environment where everywhere you go, you're surrounded by men who average 192cm (64"), 105kg (231lbs) - with the weight difference being primarily muscle - with a bench press of 400lbs. On average. Basically, the average person around you is a NFL linebacker. Now picture that a good number of them are sexually attracted to you. That they're much more likely to be involved in violent crime than you. That a disturbingly high percentage of your friends and family have been molested or raped by them. Perhaps you yourself.

Try to understand the difference in what the world is like for others.

Comment Re:Was Obvious from the Start (Score 2) 168

It doesn't help that a lot of the 'watches as jewelry' types are either looking for jewelry in a budget(in which case spending a large fraction of the purchase price on expensive and largely invisible electronics, rather than most of the money on the attractive case, is less than totally attractive); or looking for the 'timeless' and 'heritage' and so on that watch ads are always going on about.

While technologically pointless, your zillion-jewel-fiddly-mechanical-movement is going to be just as nifty for at least decades, barring abuse. Anything 'smart' will be old news in 18 months, at most; and archaic within a few years. That isn't terribly compelling.

Comment Shocking. (Score 1) 168

It's almost as though a relatively small market got saturated; with some added bite from the (more limited; but substantially cheaper) 'fitness' bands that offer a much lower cost of entry to have an annoying gadget on your wrist and bothering you.

I never would have expected that outcome.

Comment Re:Nothing new (Score 4, Insightful) 264

It certainly isn't new; but it is, arguably, even more glaring(and idiotic) now that 'mobile' is such a thing.

Yes, the graphic designer who thinks that he's god's gift to beauty because the site 'looks good' on his color-calibrated multi-thousand-dollar Eizo has always deserved a smack; but that's especially true now that it is more likely that his target audience isn't just viewing the results on a smaller, cheaper, screen than he is; but on a tiny smartphone LCD, backlight dimmed for battery life, with a mirror finish to pick up every stray reflection and hint of sunlight.

Form over function has always been a danger; and failure to test your output on a reasonable simulation of what people will actually view it on has always been a mistake; but the contrast is particularly glaring when the gulf between the sort of screens that 'content creators' tend to use and the average quality of screens site visitors are using is so enormous. It has always been there; but it has not always been so wide.

Comment Re:If you can't see the text (Score 5, Interesting) 264

Remember those crazy, utopian, idealists who tried to design web standards so that content and presentation could be, and would be, cleanly separated; and thus easily adapted to the requirements of just about any user agent out there?

That dream isn't completely dead; but it sure doesn't get much respect from the cool kids(which can make the 'just impose your own CSS' trick pretty hairy on some of the touchier sites out there).

Comment Re:Easy Solution (Score 5, Interesting) 101

That could be an interesting legal paradox. Build two identical drones and have them take off at the exact same time filming each other, then send in the video as evidence of a crime. Because they were used to document a crime, both were legal; but then there was no crime being committed, so they weren't being used to document a crime, and were thus illegal... and thus both were documenting a crime, and thus legal...

Comment Re: Oh noes!!!!11111 (Score 4, Insightful) 449

So if there were outside factors that biologically predisposed men and women towards different career paths or interests would you accept that those might result in something other than an even distribution of employment in certain vocations?

This doesn't make sense. The differences are either innate (biological) or the result of external factors. If they're the result of external factors (i.e. not biological) then they're likely to be amenable to change. The fact that the participation of women varies hugely between cultures (for example, in India, Korea, Israel, Iran, and Lithuania, Romania, it's a lot higher) implies strongly that external factors are far more of a reason why we have so few women than anything biological.

Comment Re: Oh noes!!!!11111 (Score 4, Insightful) 449

Outside factors are not an issue.

If every role model of a programmer you see until you're a teenager is male.

If computer programmer Barbie involves the girl doing some design, but the actual coding being done by boys.

If every children's TV show that includes both women and computers has the woman saying computers are hard and the man solving the problems.

If all of the clever boys at your school are encouraged into extracurricular activities involving computers, but the girls aren't.

I'm sure it would have no impact at all on you.

If you don't think that this is real, then sit down for a couple of hours this evening and watch two hours of children's TV. Count the number of male vs female lead roles. Count the number of times anyone builds anything and whether it's done by a male or female character.

Comment Re:I say BS (Score 2) 164

the improvements have been minor in battery tech... the main improvement has been in lowering energy use in the chips (shrinking mainly)

Flatly contradicted by comparing old batteries with new, amp hours vs. volume and mass. For the past couple decades, batteries have doubled in energy density once every 8 years or so. Do you perchance have an old cell phone lying around at home? Check out its amp-hour rating and see how big/heavy it is compared to the amp hour rating and size/mass of your current cell phone's battery.

and the article say's nothing about 10x, so yes this is bullshit..

No, it is not. The maximum theoretical energy density of li-air is about 10x that of the maximum theoretical for LCO/graphite li-ion.

The problem is chemistry, no matter how much you want to believe it's possible to make a battery that is anywhere near as energy dense as gasoline, the chemistry say's no!!

Once again, false. The maximum gravimetric energy density for li-air is comparable to gasoline (12kWh/kg vs. 13kWh/kg) in the charged state, and significantly better in the discharged state. Now, you don't ever achieve the maximum for a particular chemistry, or even close to it. But then again, for a given amount of EV range, you don't have to, as electric drivetrains are 3-5x more efficient than ICE drivetrains.

Of course, neither of these are actual impediments to EV adoption; nobody gives a rat's arse whether a battery pack is physically larger or heavier than a gas tank (partially or completely offset by the reduced drivetrain mass). The real impediment is price. That said, if cost per unit mass/volume remains the same and energy density improves, then cost per watt hour improves as well.

Comment Re:I say BS (Score 1) 164

Wow, unreferenced rant someone added at the bottom - clearly you've got me there!

Try googling those quotes. The first one is only people quoting Wikipedia. The second one, I downloaded the paper and the conclusion says just the opposite ("A huge interest expressed by the scientific community in the development of Li-air battery is the demand of modern automotive industry. We have identified four major areas. If properly addressed, this technology may enter the commercial phase in the near future." (immediately after going into a wide range of papers on dealing with each of these four topics))

Slashdot Top Deals

New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.