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:Why does the ESA have a worse record of landing (Score 1) 82

I appreciate the explanation, but isn't it more that the new system was added in rush (to replace the old ones) as opposed to it being the first time used? It seems like the NASA successes were first time uses of those landing systems also, from what I remember.

Also, I really don't understand how IP applies since these are not products for commercial sale nor used for commercial purposes. I don't see where NASA could even bring a suit.

Comment Not Practical (Score 1) 130

You can't just handwave away the massive cost of proving a charger per parking space, nor even the cost of an outlet per parking space along with the electrical lines buried capable of having every single parking space drawing enough current to charge...

Even if that were practical what exactly do you imagine will happen to someone's personal charging cables or equipment left unattended overnight. Thieves are taking copper pipe out of buildings with the water still on...

Comment 3D first, self-flying much easier (Score 1) 62

Great. Let me know when it's bulletproof in a 2D environment and I'll consider the 3D version.

That's actually backwards. Solving for the 3D case is vastly simpler, because while in the air you have very few obstacles to content with, you basically just have to be sure you can react to other planes, and have programmed in the coordinates of no-fly zones - otherwise travel is just a straight line. There are already drones that can find their way back home if the control signal is lost, and almost drones that can fly around tree branches without hitting them...

For takeoff landing you can simply dictate that a solid volume of sufficient space must be below or above you to land/takeoff.

Comment It can be solved - the solution is Hydrogen (Score 1) 130

I've noticed that also in the past when traveling and staying with friends in Europe.

That's why I still think the future for most electric cars will end up being hydrogen, not battery power - though with advancements like these battery may be a higher percentage, especially if you could go somewhere just one day a week to spend a half hour charging.

Comment Normal is not what you think (Score 1) 130

Long charging times are for most people only a problem on vacation. Normally people commute much shorter distances than the maximum modern electric cars can drive and can charge their cars at night.

I love how you say "normally" when the vast number of people who have cars live in apartments where it may not be "normal" to have a plug anywhere near the car at night.

Is your goal to have electric cars for only the elite? Or for EVERYONE? If electric cars are to break out of a tiny niche for the rich they have to work for people who do not own homes.

Comment That would be the real game changer (Score 1) 130

Non-electric cars are simply more practical for most people not just because of range, but also charging time. Even Tesla Supercharger stations take way too long for most people to tolerate.

But if you have 1000 miles of range, suddenly it's much more practical to live with a very long charging time because you can wait a day or two to find a good charging solution - plus it would mean you could get somewhere faster than with a gas vehicle since you wouldn't have to stop on a long trip to fill up.

We'll see if the tech actually materializes in real life, but I really hope it does.

Comment Re:"Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score 1) 180

Considering the stuff that's come out from leaked emails including stuff like Hillary knowingly ordering the destruction of data even after demands for the data under law? You can take the link as you want, it does have backlinks to all of the previous leaked emails, previous statements and so on. That means she/they was lying, ignored official requirements, or simply believe they're so big they can avoid prosecution.

You might want to have a closer look at your source (and the actual evidence your source is using).

In Dec 2014, after delivering the first batch of emails to the FBI, Clinton decided to change the retention policy to 60-days (which would nuke all the old emails), but the sysadmin didn't actually do it.

In early March 2014 the House Committee issues a subpoena, in late March 2014 the sysadmin realized he hadn't carried out the request from back in December.

What Clinton and her team have maintained is that the sysadmin made the decision to violate the subpoena by belatedly carrying out the deletions on his own.

You may not believe it, but neither the sysadmin (who got immunity) nor the emails you're citing here, actually contradict that narrative.

Again your interpretation is contradicted by the first sentence of your source!

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arranged a $12 million donation from Moroccan King Mohammed VI to her family’s charity in 2014 in return for the Clinton Global Initiative hosting its international meeting in the North African Muslim nation, according to an email made public Thursday by Wikileaks."

Of course it's not entirely your fault, the Daily Caller is apparently convinced that a charity doing something for a major donor is somehow wrong.

Comment Why does the ESA have a worse record of landing? (Score 2) 82

First of all, I don't see much mention that they still have a new satellite in orbit around Mars so the mission is at least partly successful.

But with a string of failures to land on Mars from the ESA, and a string of successes from NASA you have to start to wonder - what is it that is lacking in the ESA program that is not able to get landings right? Is it just different approaches to the problems of landing that are not panning out over a few attempts? Is it some kind of engineering process failure that they just are not accounting for some possibilities? I was wondering if anyone had any insight.

I wish the ESA the best of luck and really want to se them succeed, as the more craft studying mars the better (though they are all a handful of beans in comparison to the first human to land and study there).

Comment Re:Useless for any occasion (Score 1) 376

You mention hunting - is it really a quick draw sport where if the reader takes an extra few seconds to recognize you, it's a critical failure?

Yes depending on what you are hunting, sometimes you have only a moment, and you never walk with guns at the ready.

I don't even bother to read the rest of what you wrote, it's so absurd to argue with someone with zero understanding of the subject. It would be like trying to discuss the drawbacks of various design patterns with a toddler...

Comment Yes I do have an idea (Score 1) 376

You have NO IDEA how effective the finger scanner will be.

Because it's an added layer on top of a system that already sometimes fail (guns jam or sometimes safeties will not release), and furthermore it's an electric system requiring power to function - I can guarantee it will increase the failure rate in successful access to gun for self defense.

To put that in real world terms, lets go for a very low figure and say the increase in failures means there are twenty more women raped in a year. Why would you be for that? Doesn't sound like a good tradeoff to me.

In reality of course the increase in allowed raped would be much higher because it would be mostly females purchasing a "smart" gun, misled by people like yourself into thinking they are better in some way... it's kind of like you are just one step removed from raping them.

Comment Re:You use an AR-15 to protect your home (Score 1) 376

You and your AR-15 don't stand a chance against a modern mechanized army

As is proved so very well by ISIS and the complete destruction they have undergone...

Oh wait, they have a whole state of their own built on AK-47's (same difference) and theft.

If freedom's your bag start trying to figure out the wealth inequality problem. Money is freedom.

Right, because the value of "money" is not arbitrarily determined by the state and can not be pulled or disabled remotely at any time... Oh wait again.

In a conflict free world you would be right that money is power. But money the way you are thinking about it is a dangerously thin illusion of power.

Comment Useless for any occasion (Score 1) 376

Seems like it would be useful in an environment like a gun range where you aren't relying on it for safety.

A) as another poster noted, the whole reason you go to a gun range is to get more better at shooting the guns you have, so that if you need to (or want to) use them for real later - either quickly like self defense, or more methodically like hunting - you know how well you can aim with them, what realistic distances are, how much kick to absorb or correct for...

B) Which leads us to a fingerprint scanner being a disaster in a crisis situation like a home invasion, you don't have the time for that nor want to rely that a gun you might have not touched for a while still has power enough to enable the fingerprint scanner. Similarily if you go hunting, it would REALLY REALLY SUCK to travel for hours to find out your fingerprint friend has no power or just decides that environmental conditions mean your fingers are now invalid.

So said fingerprint scanner gun would never be a gun you would use in real life, making it pointless to shoot at the range,

Comment Re: Equal amounts? (Score 1) 317

This is basically what I take from your position:

Sacrifice our principals to stop Trump? Never!

Sacrifice our principals to stop Hillary? Hell yeah!

Well that's a glorious way of summing up your own bias that you could possibly parse it that way. Advocating that people vote for a third party is clearly not favoring one of those over the other. Advocating people vote for Johnson or Stein is obviously a way to not sacrifice my principles to either.

It's ironic that you complain of how I parsed your statement, because you completely misparsed mine.

I didn't say you were abandoning your principles by supporting a 3rd party.

I said you were abandoning your principles by endorsing the actions of a major power using spycraft to try and sway the election.

Neither candidate so dangerous as to be worth sacrificing one's principles over. At the end of the day they are both pathetic and craven. Neither one will cause armageddon; they're too vain to.

GWB went into Iraq based on his gut feeling that it was the right thing to do.

As a result of that action hundreds of thousands have died, the EU is experiencing a migrant crisis that threatens breakup, and the global recession was a lot worse than it likely should have been.

And GWB was orders of magnitude better suited to be president than Trump. Don't underestimate just how much damage Trump could cause.

What a shocking revelation! Next you'll tell us that wrestling is fixed!!

Actually, it is a bit shocking. Most politicians are not so pathetic and chameleon as to openly state this to their backers.

How would you know? We've only seen Clinton's dirty laundry.

Romney for certain was at least as guilty as Clinton with his 47% comments.

There are ways to openly and honestly separate one's personal opinions from one's politics whilst not lying to the people about the positions one will be fighting for.

If you're looking to confuse the public and cause needless controversies. Do you really think Obama only came around to the idea of gay marriage in 2012?

Clinton's personal opinions are kept personal because they're irrelevant. It's the positions she campaigns on that will show how she'll govern.

Even Trump managed to do this, at least once and at least briefly regarding the transsexual bathroom thing. He's for letting transwomen use the bathrooms in Trump Tower, but he defers to the party when it comes to national policy--he'll veto legislation that tries to protect transsexuals on the national stage because he's "in favor of letting the states decide." (Maybe he's walked this back since then; I don't know.)

That's not nuance, that's incoherence. On everything except immigration Trump's policies are under-defined and incoherent. Unless it has to do with immigration, Muslims, or the military, Trump is just trying to repeat what he thinks the GOP wants to hear.

I don't respond well to this sort of fear-mongering or this protectionist attitude toward unrepentant liars. Leaks have always happened. They are an essential tool for keeping our democracy at least semi-functional. But suddenly they're not leaks any more--they're "hacks" ! Oh noes!

And there's a strong ethos that the media, who is the one typically digging for and exposing leaks, will pursue both sides more or less equally. Because the power to expose leaks is the power to sway elections.

I appreciate lies being exposed. If it's true that the Russian government is the only one doing it at this moment in time then kudos to them! I encourage anyone and everyone to leak/hack Trump's dirty little secrets as well, though I must say that (as I am with Bill Clinton) I'm much more interested in his lies on policy than his lies about his personal affairs.

Except few entities other than the Russian government have the resources to leak/hack on this scale. This isn't just one phishing attack against one campaign chair. It's months of well crafted attacks against a multitude of people including a series of technically advanced hacks.

You're also advocating for a system where parties would be encouraged to encourage a group of unethical extremist supporters who will carry out their dirty work for them.

I'd be fascinated to see what emails were going around the Trump Org, but that no one has hacked and leaked them is a good thing.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 221

Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.

Correction: He argued a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his parents' nationality. Mexicans are not necessarily Hispanic, just as Americans are not necessarily European, African or Asian.

It was because the judge was of Hispanic ethnicity and still embraced some portion of Mexican culture. Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, did you hear Trump bring it up once? No? Ok. I hope we can forget about that absurd position and agree that Trump was talking about race and culture, not the nationality of the parents.

Note that Rubio and Cruz probably escaped similar remarks because they've publicly embraced white European culture.

And even *if* he had made a racist statement, that still doesn't mean all of his supporters are racist. That's a hasty generalization.

No one sane claims all of his supporters are racist, just a lot of them.

Oh, and this is a lovely flip of the standard "just because a lot of Trump's supporters are racist doesn't mean he is!"

It just floors me when liberals are for free speech *except* when it's speech they disagree with...

If floors me when some conservatives demonstrate that they have no clue what free speech means.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 221

Wanting to keep out members of a "religion" that openly-stated goal of which is the takeover of the world

Islam is a political philosophy of conquest that happens to contain a religion. It's one of several political philosophies that we could live without.

Islam is whatever the hell the particular believer happens to believe.

If you're a member of ISIS, Islam is the one true faith and should be spread by the sword.

If you're a farmer, Islam might be a religion preaching peace and compassion.

If you're a student, Islam might be an annoying set of dietary restrictions.

To claim that Muslim is a political philosophy of conquest is no more valid than an atheist like myself claiming that Christianity is a political philosophy that demands theocracy, the repression and even killing of gays, and Jews should control Biblical Israel to bring the Second Coming.

Those Christians exist, but if you claimed those beliefs broadly represented all Christians people would rightly regard you as a lunatic.

Assuming that anyone who embraces the label Islam is a member of your "political philosophy of conquest" is inaccurately stereotyping a lot of people (probably over a billion). It is the definition of bigotry. If you object to that label then reconsider how readily you categorize 1.7 billion people with a very diverse set of beliefs.

Slashdot Top Deals

Alexander Graham Bell is alive and well in New York, and still waiting for a dial tone.