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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Maybe VR would work better? (Score 1) 74

I hate to be the guy who suggests that the US military spend yet more taxpayer dollars on the "next new thing", but perhaps some of their problems could be addresses by replacing their current simulators with VR headsets and PCs?

Their current approach seems to be largely the "cave" approach, where the trainee sits inside a room by himself and images are projected on the walls around him. That's fine as far as it goes, but doing it that is by its nature expensive and takes a lot of space, which means not very many people can be using the simulator at once, which limits the military's ability to train groups of trainees how to co-ordinate their behavior with each other.

Replace that with a networked gaming PC and an Oculus Rift (or similar) for each trainee, and I think you could provide a similarly immersive experience to a lot more people simultaneously, for about the same price.

Comment Re:So much for Apple's "better design" (Score 1) 196

Well, I'll be the counter-anecdote, then. When I bought my iPhone6+, after about two weeks it started to compulsively touch itself. For example, I could be looking at a Google Map (not doing anything, just looking at the phone while it sat on the table), and suddenly the map would spontaneously scroll from my location in LA to somewhere in Utah, all on its own; as if it had received a touch event somewhere way off the edge of the screen. Similar strange spontaneous behaviors would occur in all other apps (and even on the "Desktop") at random times, every few minutes, and it was enough to drive anyone crazy.

I took the onanistic iPhone6+ back to the Apple store back for a replacement, and so far the replacement has had no problems (knock on wood).

Comment Re:Good luck (Score 1) 180

Politicians are always the same. All they do is appeal to whatever they see as the current mentality that will get them (re)elected.

There's a name for politicians that don't do that -- they are called "non-politicians". You don't get to govern if you can't get into (or stay in) office.

There's a clear Darwinian-style process at work there.

Comment Set up a dummy account (Score 1) 344

If push came to shove I'd set up dummy Facebook and Twitter accounts and let CBP see them. No good way to tell which of the several hundred Laura Hallidays on Facebook is me. Post some pictures of cats, a few likes, done.

I already engage in some self-censorship. There are a few CDs (mainly Russian and Israeli acts) I leave at home when I cross the border.

...laura

Comment Re:I love DSL (Score 1) 141

I think it depends on whose DSL you are using. My mom was paying $95/month for phone+DSL that was slow when it worked, and often didn't work at all. When she complained, AT&T reduced her monthly bill to make up for the poor performance, but even then she was paying $75/month for phone+Internet service that was inadequate and painful to use.

Eventually we switched her Internet and phone lines over to cable (Comcast), and now she is much happier, can stream video reliably, doesn't call me up regularly to ask why her computer "isn't working" today.... and is paying less than before.

TL;DR: service quality depends a lot on which neighborhood you live in.

Comment Re:Incomplete title... (Score 4, Informative) 399

>No one wants Trump or Hilary,

This is demonstrably wrong.

... plus even if it was true, most people would still vote for one of those two candidates, because the anti-Trump people really don't want to see Trump in office, and the anti-Hillary people really don't want to see Hillary in office. In those circumstances, very few of them will be willing to effectively annul their influence on the election by throwing their vote away on a third-party candidate who isn't going to win anyway.

Now if we had a third-party candidate who was polling competitively with the two first-party candidates, or if we had a voting system that didn't suffer significantly from the spoiler effect, things might be different. But we don't, so they aren't.

Comment Re: Was this before or after adjustments? (Score 1) 270

REal science is based on logical skepticism, not just crazy ass made up doubt. Not denial wrapped in skepticism.

Logic skepticism. There Is a reason why scientific experts i the field came to consensus regarding Global Warming.

There is a reason Countries that have the most economical impt still agree with Man Made GW.

When skepticism relies on an global conspiracy that involves thousands ,i f not 10's of thousands, or people, it's not real skepticism.

.

Comment Re: Was this before or after adjustments? (Score 1) 270

I'm not a climatologist.

Then shut up.

" However, I understand science and statistics "

The claim made by everyone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

As an example , in no way did they " adjust the data in order to reach your conclusion".

This also tell me you have no clue what you are talking about:
"The warming in the data is almost exclusively due to the adjustments supposedly to account for urban heat islands. However, without those adjustments, the temperatures are pretty flat."

Lets set your admitted ignorance aside ad go straight to the base science:

1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it passes right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

4) Greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actually address the facts of GW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?

So now you have to answer:

Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?

Comment Re:What a joke... (Score 1) 113

I can get in my 8000lb truck and drive 600+ miles before needing to refuel... and I can stop at nearly any fuel station to fill her up with 30+ gallons in 2-3 minutes(diesel pumps tend to be MUCH faster than gas pumps).

All very true, and a definite advantage for fuel-powered cars over battery-powered cars, in scenarios involving long-distance travel.

However, most people do not drive 600 miles at a stretch, so for them, there is not much advantage in being theoretically able to do so.

Just like with cell phones, as long as the car's battery can reliably last you until you're ready to plug in for the night and go to sleep, that's good enough. It will be fully charged again in the morning; any capacity above that is gravy.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked." -- John Gall, _Systemantics_

Working...