Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:A new cult: Drone Danger Denial (Score 1) 401

Normally you shouldn't have to dive your 'drone' because you shouldn't be operating it in the same airspace as aircraft operate anyway. However, I've seen with my own eyes, and youtube is filled with operators violating the tenets set forth by the FAA. As a matter of fact, just a week ago I witnessed one in my neighborhood being operated: within 4 miles of an airport (as a matter of fact it was headed toward the active approach vector), over a populated area, looked to be about 500' up, and went so far that there was no way the operator could have been in visual sight of it unless they themselves were in a vehicle. I disagree with you and would label this operator as an idiot. This one vehicle violated at least 5 of these guidelines. It's only a matter of time until there is an incident, and the operator will not be the one who gets killed or injured. As a matter of fact, I have read several stories where the aircraft had to change course or stop operations because of the proximity of one of these.

Comment Re:A new cult: Drone Danger Denial (Score 1) 401

From this BBC article:

After landing, the pilot reported an object - believed to be a drone - had struck the front of the Airbus A320

I think maybe, just maybe, a pilot can tell the difference between a bird and a very different looking man made object. Even if this was actually a bird strike or no strike at all, you can't say that there exists NO danger to aircraft striking a drone. As pointed out above, a drone's battery is much more dense than anything on a bird, and as we know, bird strikes themselves are a real danger to aircraft especially if ingested into the engine(s).

Comment Re:Hyberbole much? (Score 1) 278

I want to know how you think that the patdown is somehow less of a violation your body and rights as the machine (I'm not trying to be aggressive here, I'm genuinely curious). I fly about every other month and I've never done the machine, but I'm not under the impression that the patdown isn't a violation of my rights (or less so, indeed I'd argue it's even more 'intimate' than the scanner), it's just that I need to fly and have to do one of them to pass through security. I suppose I started opt-ing out as partly protest, partly against someone looking at my essentially nude body, and partly not sure of the technology. Now that years have passed and the push-back from the public has been extremely minimal, those of us in this camp are going to just have to accept that the vast majority of folks don't have a problem with these searches. That doesn't mean they aren't wrong, it's just that we don't have the numbers to affect change.

Comment Re: Hyberbole much? (Score 1) 278

If enough of us stand up there is a chance, if everyone continues to be spineless sheep then we are screwed.

I'm sorry, but there are extremely few people that see these body scanners as bad (actually most people are probably in alignment with the TSA's stance which is that they are efficient [notice I didn't say effective]). If they don't allow folks to opt-out, only those who have been opting-out all along (I'm one of them, and I've never seen another person voluntarily opting-out) are going to be put in the decision of giving in and going through the machine or canceling their trip (probably after being interrogated by the TSA). Virtually no one else is going to protest. By the way, there are many in this thread who are forgetting that the pat down is just as much a violation of your rights as the scanner.

Comment Onto the device is the important bit (Score 1) 214

it's equally important that you can actually get the fix *onto* the device

Don't even get me started on how I can't flash vanilla Android onto the Samsung Galaxy S4 that I own because they locked down the bootloader. Moved onto a Nexus device and will never give my money to Samsung as long as they continue with that shit.

Comment Re: They aren't revolutionizing shit. (Score 1) 397

Stated goals aside, I suspect they are beta testing on hipster consumers so they can make their real money with massive purchases via emergency support services (think pallets and pallets of this stuff delivered to disaster areas), and probably even patents/trademarks/market share so it's the go-to food for inner-planetary space missions.

Comment Efficiency (Score 1) 252

In thinking about the future of cars when explaining what self-driving cars are to friends and family, I often am asked and ponder the question “why would someone buy one?” If you had one, there is, of course, the ability to do other things while you're en route, like read, work, watch media, sleep (perhaps this won't be allowed?), etc. This benefit in itself “adds value” to that vehicle over a traditional one, especially for those with long commutes. I also imagine the navigational complexity of them eventually including real-time traffic/hazard avoidance so that they can arrive faster than cars without those systems. There will be some consumers which will see self-driving vehicles' lack of ability to “drive aggressively” as a deal breaker. However, I imagine a solution where at some point (a tipping point may be where there are as many self-driving cars as traditional ones) traffic lights will only need to be respected by traditional cars since the self-driving ones will be on a mesh network talking to each other and traffic controllers and can safely avoid hitting each other looking like something akin to controlled chaos. Again, this efficiency of arriving to your destination much quicker than a traditional car would add value. Time is money.

Slashdot Top Deals

Riches cover a multitude of woes. -- Menander