Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Analogue vs Digital, and DRM (Score 1) 315

USB Type-C allows for analog out to a pair of dumb headphones. You can either connect a pair of native Type-C dumb headphones (dumbphones?) or a 3.5mm set of dumbphones to a $3 adapter.
 
There will also be digital headphones and powered dumphones, but USB Type-C can totally be used to pass an analog signal from inside the phone, directly to a tiny set of speakers strapped to your head. There's no DRM in analog audio signals.

Comment It's about the battery backpack, stupid. (Score 2) 41

The clip on backpack battery represents a throwback to the old StarTac (pre-RAZR) days where you could get a slimline battery (which was for chumps) or this mutant cancer battery bulge, which gave you something like a week worth of standby. It was ugly, but holy wow it was an official manufacturer-built battery backpack, not unlike what they're making now.
 
Being able to buy a phone with a first party batter backpack puts Motorola on the radar of a lot of people who crave a true all-day phone. I'm certainly looking at it now.
 
I have a Nexus 5x which while having an average battery life, I went on a company offsite outing today and had to bring a USB battery bank to keep it from running out of juice. I suspect there are other people out here that demand more battery life than the average phone is capable of giving.
 
Nobody actually cares about the pico projector or... whatever the other one was. Everyone paying attention to this as a positive attribute is totally focused on the first party battery backpack. If I bought a Moto Z, I'd buy three backpacks, one for current use, one for the office (on a charger) and one at my house as a backup, all ready to hot-swap. I can live with a thicker phone, but using ride share services as often as I do, I can't function without my phone these days.

Comment Re:Too Little, Too Late... (Score 1) 42

Odd, where do you live? Plenty of baseball and basketball OTA here in Springfield, IL, a pretty small city. If I want to watch a baseball game that's canle-only, well, that's what bars are for. Lots cheaper than cable.

The phrase "traditional cable or satellite" amuses me, as I was six before Sputnik (long before satellite TV) and thirty before I ever had cable. Growing up in a large metropolis (St. Louis) we only had three channels, now I have twelve in a FAR smaller market.

Comment Re:Your friend... (Score 1) 42

NOBODY should be on cable any more unless they live somewhere where there's just no signal. For everyone else, cable is obsolete.

In the early eighties, cable was a good deal. All your local stations without snow, ghosts, or static, and a dozen good, ad-free extra channels.

Now? TV has gone digital, which banished ghosts, snow, and static. Meanwhile, on cable they even have ads during the actual programming, and the stations like Discovery and History have gone completely to hell. Discovery used to be science, now it's "trick my truck". History used to be about history, now it's "ice road truckers" or some such nonsense.

But 500 channels! Yeah? How many can you watch at once? Why would I have any interest in the four or five channels devoted completely to golf when I hate that game? Or the dozen channels with nothing but women's programs? Why do I need CNN and four more like it when I have Google News for free?

Cable is obsolete.

Charge fifty cents per month for channel I actually watch and you MIGHT get me as a customer... but I don't watch much TV, anyway.

Comment Re:No fallacy. H1B designed for geniuses, Kaku is (Score 1) 235

listen to Kaku's explanation in the video.

This country (and apparently everyone else's) has a terrible aliteracy problem. There's hardly any illiteracy, but the last I read, only something like 3% of Americans read a book last year.

I for one do NOT want to see a talking head. A video that actually uses the video to demonstrate something is fine, but I can read five times as fast as you can talk and get a hell of a lot more out of it.

Comment Most advertising is geared towards idiots (Score 1) 2

"100% natural! It must be really good for you! What's in it?"

"Snake venom, Mandrake root, and sewage!"

I try to avoid the chains. Ate breakfast at D&J's this morning, little locally-owned place. I do like La Bamba, a Mexican diner with Mexican food made from Mexican recipes by Mexicans. Can't stand Taco Gringo. I usually get lunch at the bar down the street.

Funny, my grandmother's diet was what they say will kill you; eggs fried in bacon grease, etc. She lived a hundred years, outliving the five doctors who all said if she didn't cut down on her cholesterol intake she'd die.

Comment Re:Emissions fix? Call me skeptical... (Score 1) 60

I'd love to see an independent, third-party certification that there isn't discernible loss in MPG or power.

Heck, I fully expected that. See, I thought VW would release a firmware patch for emission testing equipment. All VWs would start passing, no need to bother the owners with coming in for the recall.

Comment Re:Code should be as concise as possible. (Score 1) 212

One-letter variable names alone provide far too little job security, except for l and o. This is much better code:

for (godzilla=pokemon, godzilla+=l; godzilla<jesus)
    lllillilil = llliliilil + llillilill;

Did you think I was adding one to godzilla in the for clause? You're not worthy to maintain my code. Seriously, I got stuck maintaining a code base where some genius used l as a variable name everywhere - he now works for Microsoft Research (not making that up).

Comment Re:The title is misleading (Score 1) 133

Personally, I think those detectors are very likely to be a waste of time. We're just building what are basically better neutrino detectors, not because there's any reason to think dark matter will interact with them, but because it's a detector we know how to build!

I guess partly it's a case of whether dark matter is "massive particles that interact via the weak force" or "massive particles that interact weakly" (via some other force) - if it's the latter, these detectors aren't likely to work.

There are lots of theories about what the "WIMPs" really are - there's no evidence of weak force interaction, it only sets an upper limit on their interaction cross-section. Heck, even that's only true if dark matter was found in equal amounts of matter and anti-matter in the early universe, which is a heck of an assumption since we don't understand why familiar matter had such a matter/anti-matter imbalance early on. If dark matter had the same imbalance, then far more possibilities open up, as long as it doesn't interact with light (or I guess the strong force, as these detectors should really have worked in that case).

Comment Re:String theory is just that: a theory (Score 3, Informative) 133

But we just proved it doesn't exist.

No, that's not what TFA says at all. You can't even blame a misleading Slashdot headline here: you just made that up. A detector was built to find a very specific kind of matter. It didn't find anything. No real surprise, as there was never any reason to think it would - it was just the sort of detector we already knew how to build.

Hence, my theory is just as valid, that EM has both mass and is a wave

Yes, that's called "Quantum Field Theory", and it's what nearly everyone believes. Doesn't explain anything that dark matter explains, though, so no.

Comment Re:Great news everyone (Score 5, Interesting) 133

No, it is more than that. Astrophysicists give the attribute of "gravity" to dark matter. In fact, that was the reason they promulgated the idea, i.e., galaxies would fly apart otherwise so there must be something we cannot see which supplies the extra gravity.

They do not entertain the idea that maybe their laws are wrong, or that some other phenomenon might be affecting gravity.

That was true quite a few years ago, when there were many theories for galactic rotation rates, including MOND (precisely "the idea that maybe their laws are wrong"), hot dark matter, and cold dark matter which might be WIMPs or MACHOs.

Then we got more data.

WIMPs won out because they also explain gravitational lensing and the early universe. The cosmic microwave background radiation observations were decisive. The predictions made WIMPs were right on the money - turns out the early universe had just the predicted amount of (a) matter, that (b) wasn't moving near the speed of light, and (c) before block holes, brown dwarfs, etc could have formed.

That's how science works. Scientists do not lack creativity - there was a whole forest of ideas to explain galactic rotation rates. But as more observations of unrelated phenomena come it, only "some sort of particle" was left standing. Falsifiable theories were falsified.

This experiment was a bit silly IMO - it was just a detector much like the detectors we built for neutrinos, which had never shown any signs of dark matter before. It was very much a case of "well, we know how to build this sort of detector already, so let just build a big one and hope for the best".

Slashdot Top Deals

"Never ascribe to malice that which is caused by greed and ignorance." -- Cal Keegan

Working...