Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:ENDED is not a verb (Score 1) 188

Both are verbs.

Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines!
I often start my car before I put on my seat belt.
I had trouble starting my car this morning, but it started fine yesterday. It usually starts fine.

The exam ends at 3.
Classes ended early today.
I bet she will end the relationship after the trip.
We must end the war on drugs.

Comment Re:Since they determined autopilot wasn't to blame (Score 1) 183

Your opinion does not agree with the conclusions of the HTSA report.

Uh, yeah, it does.

Conclusion is that indeed some periode of inattentiveness exist but rarely bigger than 5 sec. So the 7 seconds in which the driver did not react to the truck crossing his path is very exceptional.

Wow. No it didn't really say that at all. Look at figure 10.

ACC driving -- that's just with adaptive cruise control. people paid attention. 94.59% of the time people looked away from the road it was under 3 seconds. The remain 5.41% was under 5. They never looked away more than 7.

Add "lane assist" (LAADS with no counter measures) and suddenly 8.33% of the time people looked away it was for more than 7 seconds. That's huge... HUGE... like 1 in 12 times you glanced off the road it was for more than 8 seconds.

So Tesla added counter-measures (that's features to alert the driver they aren't paying attention); that's the LAADS column. And that made a big difference, down to 3.72% from 8.33% for glances longer than 7 seconds. But that's still around 1 in 25 glances off the road were *longer* than 7 seconds. 1 in 25 is not "very exceptional"... sure its a lot better than 1 in 12. And 1 in 4 glances off the road are more than 3 seconds. Compared to one in 20 with just adaptive cruise control.

That tells you that yes, I was right, that absolutely, all the data shows that drivers are much less attentive and engaged than they are if they have to steer themselves, even with counter measures.

Secondly they looked at the amount of accidents and collisions of Tesla's before and after the Autopilot was introduced. They fell by 40 percent.

That's not relevant, because what I proposed as an alternative would retain all the collision avoidance benefits.

In my opinion a good attentive driver, even with automatic systems engaged, will still keep his attention where it belongs: on the road.

The study clearly shows a substantial drop off in engagement. Even with counter measures the number of off road glances more than 7 seconds goes from never to 1 in 25. And the number of off road glances exceeding 3 seconds nearly quadruples.

Consider how many off-road glances drivers collectively make -- LAADS systems represent a MASSIVE drop in how much attention is being paid to the road. The LAADS systems may well enable that to be relatively safe, but don't kid yourself for a second that drivers are just as engaged with driving with the systems on as they are without them. The data you cited doesn't bear that out at all.

Comment Re:Since they determined autopilot wasn't to blame (Score 1) 183

Under no circumstances does this technology make you less safe.

I disagree.

it does TOO MUCH, to the point that even a safe driver CANNOT realistically be expected to be continually engaged with the act of driving for extended periods of time, and that makes him less safe.

If I am driving today, even on a highway, the constant micro-corrections in steering help keep me engaged.

Tesla's autopilot takes that engagement away, Musk himself bragged about 'hardly touching the wheel' on a long trip. After hours of not *needing* to pay attention to the road, and not needing to do *anything*, its pretty easy to imagine it would be pretty easy to be much less engaged, and more easily distracted, and therefore less 'safe'.

And again, Its absolutely not a question of choosing "Tesla autopilot as it is today" or "nothing" ... we could compare "Tesla autopilot today" with a version that had the *same* collision avoidance features, and that would, if it engaged to avoid a collision would only automatically drive enough pull the car over safely... so you had ALL the accident avoidance benefits of Tesla autopilot, but couldn't rely on it to drive for you while you watched a movie, because if it had to brake for you, or it had to correct your lane .... and it didn't detect that you were paying attention by making your own adjustments, then it would simply pull over.

Tesla is touting its ability to drive for you and the ability is enabled for it to drive for you with virtually no input from the driver. And that is LESS SAFE then if it only used its abilities to avoid accident and safely pull over.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 4, Informative) 794

Your not wrong, but at the same time, not quite right...

You all know a female has an XX chromosome pair, while a male is XY.

Yes! Well ... mostly yes. Some people have XXY and XYY and XXXY, XXYY... and other combinations.

Some people have extra chromosomes in only *some* of their cells ('mosaics')

And wait... there's more...for example, two (or more) separately fertilized zygotes can (egg+sperm) themselves fuse, producing a chimera. (they'd be fraternal twins if they didn't fuse). The result of fusing though is that some of your cells have one set of DNA, some have another... and as should be obvious, some of your cells may not even have the same parents; if the sperm came from different individuals...)

And then not even all your plain jane "XX" are female...

And some females only have a single X...

Comment Re:battery life a braindead argument (Score 1) 298

1) How often you do you see people using digital cameras instead of phone cameras? Enough that every computer needs to accommodate them?

No. Not every computer. Just the top of the line pro series.

2) Every camera over $200 will have Wi-Fi, and it's been that way for years now. It's very easy/automatic to use. Every DSLR has WiFi, even the cheap ones.

Yes. But who gives a shit? I don't want to take 2 hours transferring photos via an adhoc wifi network, using a system that ties up my camera while it's happening. Popping out a card, popping in a new one, and carrying on.

3) Low end p&s cameras have sensors barely any larger than a smartphone. Regardless of their merits, though, empirically people have transitioned away.

True. Not sure what your argument here is though.

4) By that reasoning, why did they get rid of the VGA port, or the DVD drive? Having little-used ports be available as a cheap dongle seems like an intelligent compromise.

The DVD drive is quite fragile, has a lot of moving parts, and takes up a lot of space. An external USB drive is a reasonably sensible compromise for those people who still need it. The SD card reader is a tiny slot that a lot of macbook pro owners aren't even aware of. It's ridiculous to compare it to a DVD drive.

As for the VGA port... what is your argument? A laptop is more useful if it has common display ports. Period. There are quite a few of them and it's reasonable to support only the most common, most universal -- so an argument can be made for VGA -- a lot of people would still find that useful. Nevertheless, VGA is a fading fast and in 2017 it should have HDMI. It's reasonable to need an adapter for VGA but its ridiculous to need an adapter for HDMI.

5) Micro-SD cards are sometimes used for phones, and this makes them more popular than SD cards.

The cool think about micro SD is that they work with SD adapter trays. If all need is microsd, you can leave the adapter tray in the slot. If you want to make the argument that it would be handy for a pro series laptop to have a microsd card slot TOO... then sure, I agree.

My wife has the pro and it's awesome. I agree that they should have had a USB 3.0, but really it doesn't get in the way of her work

I have the previous generation pro. And I find the lack of gigabit ethernet idiotic; and I hate carrying around a stupid dongle for it. But otherwise i like it.

I also have the generation before that, and it is getting dated now in terms of performance. But it was basically perfect -- and the only reason my kids are still using it is that with the replacement battery, SSD and RAM upgrade it's still got enough oomph to be useful. But that is all over now with the new unit... your wife certainly won't be breathing any extra life into her new pro with any upgrades down the road.

And what else does the he new one do? Still no ethernet. No HDMI. No magsafe. No SDCard. No escape key. No USB ports. We get USB-C which is cool and will be increasingly useful in the future and every laptop you buy today should have a one or even two, but like most of us I live in the present, where the lack of the other ports is a pretty big deal.

The new macbook pro, as I've said before, is a terrific update to the macbook air line. I'm glad your wife likes hers and I can understand why. It's a fine laptop if you wanted a newer better faster macbook air.

But its a gimped piece of crap with extremely limited options if you wanted a pro laptop.

Comment Re:Still a bit much (Score 1) 238

There's quite the range of 'local dimming' technology out there; some of its pretty bad... some of its really good.

As expected the OLED stuff scores 10/10 but *some* of the full-array stuff scores really well. So does ALL dimming irritate you or just the bad stuff? Of course that's not a comprehensive list... but it does show the range of scores.

Also FWIW a number of TVs also have a menu option to turn it off or adjust the effect so you can get 'some dimming' but not as much... which will reduce the effect -- less 'contrast' but less artifacts.

So you have some options if you want 4K but or the TV otherwise impresses you besides the local dimming.

Comment Re:Is Oliver Schmidt the top of this criminal tree (Score 1) 106

It's a shame I can't get the same high-quality air I used to get last century.

If you could have their air, but also had to live with their technology and medicine too would you still take the trade?

Meanwhile, depending on where you live, 100 years ago was pretty filthy... London air quality in 1917.... sulpher dioxide and soot from the smokestacks... and that was on a good day... 100 years ago puts you right in the middle of World War I ... a little soot in your air would be right pleasant compared to the 50,000 tons of chlorine, phosgene, mustard, and other gases that some of your 100-year-ago contemporaries would have been dealing with.

Meanwhile, smog and acid rain, are on the decline in North America thanks to environmental regulation and pollution controls... and with the mass market arrival of electric city air quality is actually poised to get even better in the future.

Comment Re:Still a bit much (Score 2) 238

I actually bought a new TV the day before yesterday. My previous one was 6-7 years old. I looked at OLED, I ogled the black levels, and then I bought a 4K LED backlit LCD with full dimming* that was 15" larger for quite a bit less.

* yeah still not nearly as good as OLED, but very good blacks for LED LCD.

The new screen looks great. The technology is proven. It would have cost me a LOT more to get an OLED TV at the same size.

Comment Re:Uhm...and? (Score 1) 97

No, because how does Microsoft make any money off someone who upgrades their graphics card and storage, but who doesn't buy a new Windows license?

Office 365 (slightly tongue in cheek)

And maybe a Windows 365 Enterprise subscription (which if it lets a single user put Windows Enterprise (with control over updates, no telemetry, etc etc...) on his gaming desktop, his laptop, and his HTPC... for one price (the same way office 365 works) that might well be alluring to "people who care".

While the "people who don't" will run home/pro and suffer Microsoft's "management" of their PC.

more and more PC owners are learning they don't need to ditch their 3 year old computer and can instead opt to upgrade it. SSD, more RAM, and a new graphics card and their old machine is better than new.

OTOH... more and more mac owners are learning that their new Mac will only ever have what it shipped from the factory with, and that the ram upgrade and SSD upgrade that makes the stuff from 2010 still usable today... is NOT going to be a pattern that repeats anymore.

Right now, most windows gear is still upgradable... but desktops are shrinking and ultrabooks are growing... so the tipping point is coming. Enthusiasts / gamers may still have the option to upgrade their 'rigs' but mom and pop might be stuck with whatever is soldered onto their ultrabook...

Comment Re:Coal face Joe won in 2016 (Score 1) 110

Really you haven't noticed a liberal-green alliance?

Of course I have. But it's tempered by other competing interests.

1/3rd of all coal industry spending on senate candidates went to democrats. 20% of coal industry spending on congress went to democrats. Given the makeup of the houses they only need a minority of democrats in their pocket to further their agenda.

And that's my point. They have MORE than enough influence to keep the liberal-green alliance from running amok.

The parties don't move in lockstep.

Comment Re:7 sentences. Hundreds of million$ isn't a coinc (Score 2) 110

Again, its about the balance.

For every time solar-Bob called greenboy-Al looking for some tit-for-tat for his solar slush fund there was old-coal-face-joe calling Senator open-for-business telling him there was 5 million dollars for his PAC if this 'green nonsense' would go away and he could get a fast track approval to grandfather running his smokestacks under 1950 standards because it would cost 20 million bucks to update them... or whatever.

The idea that the 'green lobby' could have such overwhelming influence over policy in the face of all all the opposed lobbies, to the point that they government would be running a decades long campaign to literally suppress and fake the science is simply absurd.

Especailly since old-coal-joe ALSO gets billions in taxpayer subsidies and support... so why aren't they whitewashing the science to show minimal impact? Al Gore isn't the only PAC open for business, and old-coal-joe has a LOT of money to spend...

A liberal-green-conspiracy just lacks credibility.

Comment Re:Not that all the science is wrong. Gore made $1 (Score 4, Interesting) 110

I mean, really? That's like asking "where's the profit motive in the military industry?"

Not that I can see. The military industrial complex is of course HIGHLY motivated to sell us more weapons to the point of paying whatever it costs to install congress critters friendly to that agenda; and there really is no highly organized 'counter' complex opposed to this situation.

The politicians having handed out tens of billions of dollars to their friends based on plans to do something "green" (and some hefty donations). Do you have any idea how many billions of your money and mine Gore Inc gave to green companies who never released a product?

Itty bitty teeny tiny potatoes compared to big oil/coal/fossil, automotive, and every other industry that produces anything substantially non-green -- and they are in direct opposition to anything 'green'; and would be (and are) happy to fight tooth and nail to dismantle the EPA and every enviro-regulation or treaty on the books.

Heck even think of Gore himself.

Right. But for every gore there's 7 Rex Tillersons, 6 Exxon Mobils, FII-IIVE fracking com-pan-ies, 4 hydro dams, 3 french fried hens, 2 turtle soup makers, and a partridge in a pear tree fighting to keep it business as usual.

"Green" is the liberal slush fund just as "defense" was the conservative slush fund.

Its simply NOT comparable to the military industrial complex; because the vested opposition to the 'green' is vast, organized, and extremely well monied. The opposition to the military-industrial-complex is a few hippies... its laughable to suggest that 'green' has the same un-contested level of clout.

They also happen to be the multi-billion dollar industries that each of the parties chose to launder very large kickbacks in exchange for campaign contributions. If you haven't noticed that ... wow.

If you think the multi-billion dollar green industry is a drop in the bucket compared to the multi-TRILLION dollar industry that is decidely "un-green" ... wow. I mean... so-called "liberals" can be bought just like anyone else, and there's plenty of anti-green money lying around.

It just doesn't make credible sense for the AGW crowd to be such a powerful deep rooted conspiracy with such a large and powerful opposition to what it stands for. It's ... delusional.

Comment Re: I got an idea (Score 4, Insightful) 110

Of course, that won't happen because it would be far too damning to liberals, and might result in criminal charges for the massive fraud against the American people.

Of course, if the collective effort of scientists around the world doesn't convince you, then nothing the administration could release would.

I'm curious though why you think the administration has a vested interest in systemically lying about the climate change science? I mean... what is the profit motive here? I get why tobacco companies funded and undermined cigarette studies; I get why car companies would dodge emission controls; I get why governments don't want to deal with native affairs; or crumbling infrastructure... so what is the motive for the government to go 'big' on climate change? There's plenty of money on the table from 'big oil' to drill-baby-drill, and they don't care who drinks from the trough in support of their business interests... so why is there this big conspiracy to fake climate change?? It's delusional.

I mean, sure, science has gotten things wrong in the past, but its not a conspiracy... its just the scientific process of continual refinement, testing and re-testing claims etc. The brontosaurus was real... then it wasn't... no maybe it is again, but maybe with feathers... that's just the process. And yes, lots of 'bad science' is done, but it eventually washes out as more data is made available and more testing and validation of results is performed, as our knowledge and our techniques improve. So yeah mistakes are made, but betting -against- the latest consensens is not really a winning move. Yet you seem to think that on this ONE issue, not only is science wrong, but its a big conspiracy to fabricate it... by 'liberals' for... reasons? ... AND that you, a layperson, know better, despite virtually all the science being in general agreement.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.