Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:Incredible opportunity (Score 1) 111

Perhaps you forgot about the other identical rover that failed (partly from mechanical issues, partly due to rough terrain) around six years ago after several of its wheels failed.

No, I didn't. Only one wheel had failed by the time it got stuck, the other wheel failed while trying to free it (possibly because the very fine soil entered the wheel area). The fact that Opportunity has not become stuck should be an indication that it is possible to reach the landing site. It's a worthy goal to shoot for, anyway - the first on-site images of a spacecraft landing site taken from a different spacecraft.

expecting said rover to traverse a distance several times its entire already vastly extended mission profile is like expecting a tire rated for 20,000 miles under optimal circumstances to traverse 400,000 miles.

Many people expected Opportunity to last for 90 days.

Both rovers have already gone so above and beyond what they were designed to do that it's ridiculous. Might as well give the little guy one more shot at another first on Mars. It would be truly amazing if it made it there, and if it didn't then no one would really be surprised. It would still be able to take more pictures along the way.

Comment Re:There is still a way to get science out of this (Score 1) 111

Only if they wanted to look at everything along the way (i.e., how the rover has been used so far). If they set that point as a target to reach they *could* get there in a couple months, but they would probably want to go a little slower to take a few pictures along the way and make sure they get enough time to recharge the batteries.

Opportunity is pretty slow, but it's not 4km per year slow. They've just been stopping anywhere and everywhere to look at that rock over there.

Comment Re:Easy Solution (Score 5, Interesting) 76

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:Secure the gateways (Score 1) 271

The easiest security is to not give access. People with baby monitors want to view the video stream. They really don't want to use the debugging back door to run a shell command to allow the devs to troubleshoot a problem.

The servers should limit themselves to "How should I connect to this? It's device ABC, with password hunter7" ("I see you're on IP, hey, so's the device, you can connect directly on!") vs ("I see you're on IP, the device isn't (and I'm not going to tell you where it is), so you'll have to use me. Want a video stream?") and proxying the absolute minimum only.

That would be a meaningful improvement in security that would reduce the ability of their devices to be hacked.

Comment Re:Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever m (Score 1) 285


It's worth noting that in Windows 10, most display driver crashes are automatically recovered and don't cause blue screens anymore. This is a welcome change, as my preferred video card vendor seems unable to produce a card/driver combo that isn't rubbish for the first 2-3 years after initial release.

Full disclosure: I work for Microsoft but this is my opinion, not paid shilling.

Comment Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score 3, Interesting) 340

And how do you think the media would have reacted if the Trump campaign did something like this to elicit a violent response?

They covered it, which is why you're being obtuse and this entire "scandal" is an exercise in BS designed to muddy the waters and give cover to Trump by creating a false "both sides" narrative.

There is precisely one side, one side, in this discussion where the CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT has SUPPORTED VIOLENCE ON HIS BEHALF. You know that. O'Keefe knows that. It's precisely why most of us are so fearful he might become President. It's unheard of in modern political history for a Presidential candidate to incite violence on his behalf.

And while he's constrained - a little - by the law right now, the fact he's willing to support violence by his supporters means we have good reason to believe that - if Trump wins - there will be no fair elections in 2020. Because as President he can and probably will prevent any legal consequences for those who threaten and deal out violence against his enemies.

Hillary Clinton has not in any way endorsed violence. And frankly, the best Trump's supporters can do to muddy the water is find some low level operative who says he might hypothetically support an operation designed to expose the fact that Trump's supporters are violent.

So with respect, stop pretending you're arguing any legitimate point here. You're not. You're trying to normalize violence in an election. You need to ask yourself if you're going to continue to do so, or whether you have the guys to re-evaluate what you've been calling for.

Carry on down this path, and you, and America, are in serious danger.

Comment Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score 1) 340

Sure, here's a top official in the Trump campaign offering to pay the legal fees of anyone who beats up protestors at a Trump rally:


Notice, incidentally, that this isn't some low level idiot in the campaign brainstorming about ways to make their rival look bad by taking advantage of a group already known to be violent, but a high up official promising that those who instigate violence on Trump's behalf will be shielded legally from the consequences of their actions.

Comment Re:I say BS (Score 2) 161

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) 161

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))

Comment Re:Make up your mind (Score 1) 142

Do you have any idea what conditions are like under occupation? Here's a hint: go ask the Palestinians what occupation is like.

Not every occupier runs a Naziesque genocidal regime. Why don't you look at the American occupation of Iraq instead? We instituted curfews, and desegregated populations that were living next to one another in relative peace, causing them to come into conflict and fomenting terrorism. That's pretty close to what American occupation of America is like, except instead of desegregating a segregated populace, our laws seek to segregate it further by demonizing and subsequently ghettoizing some races.

Comment Re:Copseye (Score 1) 142

Alas, our police aren't as benevolent as those Niven depicts. Ours would take umbrage at rocks being thrown at their copseye-equivalents.

Are you kidding? Ours takes umbrage if you cross the street in the "wrong" place (even with no cars coming) or burn a spliff in the top of a tree where nobody can smell it. There's not going to be any benevolent anarchy. Just a boot stomping a human face if it doesn't assemble those doodads correctly, forever.

Slashdot Top Deals

Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?