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


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

Comment Still prefer film. (Score 1) 213

But it's very hard to do now. Why do I find it better? (1) you have 24 or 36 shots on a roll - you tend to compose more carefully. (2) Unless you're shooting raw, you have greater latitude with what you can get out of a negative (made of atoms that are relatively hard to ruin) compared to a digital shot (made of electrons that you can make go poof with one wrong finger press). Sunsets for me are the kicker. I have film shots of sunsets that are still gorgeous 30 years later, and that I can reprint and tweak and find certain highlights in. Digital sunset shots include blowouts that you can never recover from. And before some of you start, it's no more old fashioned than reading print materials or building things out of wood.

Comment Because nobody needs it and (Score 1) 435

it doesn't make the everyday experience any better. More specifically, nobody stops watching TV or complains that a TV looks flat and the picture is not believable. Good media is based on good story. How would 3D make Fargo better? To Kill a Mockingbird? NewsHour? Modern Family? The Sopranos? Answer: it wouldn't. As for sports, you do not see the action with any noticeable parallax changes unless you are on the field, and you rarely see a shot that close in play, typically only via the sidelines and in close-ups in-between plays.

Comment Seymour Papert, predeceased by (Score 1) 64

Steve Ocko - two thirds of the team at the Media Lab who along with Mitch Resnick provided the leadership that kept new cool things in front of kids and let them express creativity in tech in ays that were engaging and fun. The three of them once presented via satellite from our place to kids who said hi then quickly wanted to speak to the kids on set building the whatever out of legos and code. They realized that the kids knew where the real action was.

Comment Re:The ultimate first-world problem. (Score 1) 184

Guns or butter. Bill can do his work independent of Musk. The two do not compete for resources as they made / are making their money with new markets. But there is a bit of an eye opener when Musk decides he is too impatient to sit in traffic and thinks about doing something that will drain money even from him faster than he can calculate it. We made huge strides in this country thanks to eradication and control of diseases. We have near zero occurrences of diseases here that people routinely die of in what would be shocking numbers in the US. Gates is applying it elsewhere, but "elsewhere" to some looks like throwing it down a rat hole. The US was once that rat hole. We took solid approaches to farming (to use your example) and those farming changes did not take a moon shot - it was farm by farm with relatively simple solutions (look up the history of 4-H). And no one has the foggiest idea what life would be like for a given person if robots did all the manual labor. Why? Because there is no way to ensure that it would be the one tech advance we make with zero unintended consequences. There's a reason Michael Crichton could write the same story over an over again with different genre veneers.

Comment The ultimate first-world problem. (Score 2) 184

Your $90K car not being able to move through your $1M/mi highways at a speed that will not make you frowny. As much as I still think Bill Gates might be the Bob Dylan of tech (talent factor roughly equivalent to right place/right time factor) I think Bill has done the right thing with Being A Wealthy Person in giving money to projects that will solve the "we're dying here" problems. There's the old bit about Bill Gates makes so much money that it would be a net loss for him to stop and pick up a $100 bill. Musk seems to think that such time-saving for productive people is an actual plan to make money and that the majority cares about such kewl solutions. Also, people who think that everyone would rather spend time in a driverless car or a tube pod rather than with their hands on the wheel and their foot on the accelerator are mis-judging up to a third of the travel population.

Comment Surface is better than I thought... (Score 1) 376

and honestly if I have to run Windows 10 on something - I prefer to a surface to a laptop or desktop. Not sure what the difference is, but it just seems and feels better. Maybe I still flinch at Windows mouse drivers from the bad old days or maybe the mouse routines still stink. My index finger driver still works flawlessly. That said, I'd still take my MacBook Pro over Surface or Chromebook. OS updates are bog simple and fast, the apps are powerful with lotsa FOSS available. I can run other OSs on it. My new favorite computer however is Raspberry Pi 3B running Raspbian. I've suggested that all of our incoming students get one.

Slashdot Top Deals

If a listener nods his head when you're explaining your program, wake him up.