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 Re:battery life a braindead argument (Score 3, Interesting) 115

Falsehood #2. Wifi is still a pretty uncommon feature, and even when present is fairly problematic, finicky, and requires an unreasonable number of steps to initiate.

Actually, I've never found it finicky. The problem is that the actual maximum speed of wireless is GARBAGE for transferring photos, much less video. Wi-Fi is more than an order of magnitude too slow to be practical. Anybody who thinks otherwise has almost certainly never shot photos with anything more capable than a toy iPhone camera.

To give some context, my brand-new, high-end 5D Mark IV shoots photos that can be from 30–70 megabytes each depending on RAW settings. Even though it supports 802.11n, if memory serves, all devices in IBSS mode (without infrastructure Wi-Fi) are limited to 802.11g speeds. So in practice, unless you bring a Wi-Fi router along with you (no camera supports the captive portal Wi-Fi that you'll find in every hotel on the planet), you'll be limited to only 54 megbits per second.

At 54 megabits per second, transferring a typical daily run of 500 photos at 70 megabytes each takes almost an hour and a half, and that's actually slightly optimistic. I do use the wireless functionality to transfer a few pics at a time from my camera to my iPhone while traveling so that I can quickly post pics from my real camera on Facebook. It works well for that, because I'm only grabbing five or six pics at a time, and I'm getting a much smaller JPEG copy instead of a RAW file.

At night, though, the flash card comes out of the camera and goes into the side of my laptop, where I spend only about four or five minutes to import that entire batch of photos. If Apple had bothered to keep their SD card reader hardware up-to-date, it would take under two minutes, but the two minutes saved isn't worth the hassle of trying to dig a flash card reader out of my bag.

With a laptop that lacks a flash reader, however, the entire equation changes. Suddenly, my choices are to either try to dig out an SD card reader (which will always be hard to dig out of a camera bag) or carry a retractable USB 3.0 cable (which turns out to be easier to put in a place where it is accessible, because it is so thin) and use the camera itself as a reader, albeit with the same poor performance as Apple's old SD card reader, and draining the camera battery the whole time. Both choices are approximately equally bad, and the decision to hobble their hardware by removing such a convenient way of importing content makes me seriously question Apple's commitment to the photography market.

Then again, I never used Aperture. If I had, I'd probably have much stronger negative comments....

And finally, Falsehood #5. What universe are you from? Have you even shopped for cameras ever? I cannot even fathom where you're pulling all this nonsense from.

Pretty much. Apart from cellular phones (where nobody uses the micro-SD slot anyway), pretty much the only cameras that use micro-SD are the little cameras built by GoPro. All pro cameras use either CF or full-size SD, because when the camera isn't a tiny little toy, the size savings of micro-SD aren't enough of a benefit to make up for the smaller contact size and the resulting decrease in reliability and robustness.

Nothing you say is true to the point where you're either delusional or trolling.

Trolling, I'd imagine. Either that or it's an Apple employee astroturfing. Hard to say which.

Comment Re: Not really needed for drones (Score 1) 20

Modulation designators that state the payload type don't make much sense with digital data transports. You can do digital TV or anything else with 4 MHz bandwidth. Cellular doesn't make much sense unless they have a really long hover time and drone life, in which case it could be a pop-up base station.

Comment Re:Nothing new here (Score 1) 124

given that self driving cars cannot handle streets that have not been mapped to millimeter precision, or road constructions, or bad weather, or any of a million other real life conditions.

That's ... not how self-driving cars work. They rely on onboard sensors to follow the lane and deal with a variety of hazards. They aren't ready yet because the bar is so high, but they already work most of the time, even in bad weather with road construction.

there's no reason to believe anyone alive to day will live to see true self driving cars.

They're already here. Volvo will have 100 around the world this year (a few are already on the road in Sweden). General availability will be a few more years, but Volvo won't release them until they're safe (unlike Tesla). Self-driving functionality is a big chunk of Volvo's "no deaths in a new Volvo in 2020" plan.

Comment Re:FAA wil not allow it (Score 1) 124

A flying vehicle adds 4 additional degrees of freedom (up-down, pitch, roll, yaw)... so much more that can go wrong.

Current flying vehicles have those extra degrees of freedom because of their design, but in principle, you could design a flying vehicle that has only one additional degree of freedom (altitude), keeping the vehicle approximately horizontal at all times and using horizontally oriented secondary fans to steer. And arguably, you should, because at that point, it would be much more practical for a driver to take control if needed.

Comment Re:Is it a car or a drone by another name? (Score 1) 124

A car that is light enough to get off the ground is too fragile to survive a collision of any consequence.

I think the key phrase is "Self-driving". If there's any significant collision risk, the car could simply go straight up to avoid it. Surviving on-ground collisions should be basically a non-goal at that point.

Comment Re:Not in the real world (Score 1) 124

- Pets (and children) that will be blown into lift jets

Only if they change the laws of physics. Lift jets push something up by blowing air downwards. They suck from the top. I mean, I suppose if you have pets and children in jetpacks, it might be a concern, but if your kids and pets are doing that sort of thing, you have bigger things to worry about then them getting sucked into my (hypothetical) flying car's engines. Just saying. :-D

Comment Re:Emergency response (Score 1) 124

Just about anyplace you could safely land a "flying car" you could also land a helicopter.

Not true. A helicopter can't be moving horizontally when it lands. A flying car with wheels could potentially be moving at 70+ MPH horizontally when it lands. Assuming they can avoid any blades that stick out beyond the sides of the vehicle, that design difference completely changes the equation.

Slashdot Top Deals

Polymer physicists are into chains.

Working...