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

 



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

Comment Re: The Market Quickly Crowded with Competitors (Score 1) 50

3D TV is a very fiddly technology. You need to sit in the right position, you need special glasses or just the right angle, and your position doesn't influence the image. 3D is also that doesn't fundamentally change a movie. It has depth now, it's a really cool thing in some cases, but it's still the same movie.

An HMD is a completely different experience. The effect is perfect without fiddling. You can look around a corner. And it gives an amazing sense of immersion, which for some games is an excellent advantage.

For instance Elite: Dangerous is far easier to play in an HMD. To access the menus and ship interface all you need to do is to look in the right direction. If a ship flies out of your field of view, you just need to follow it with your head. Sure, all that can be done through keyboard or joystick controls, but it's far easier and far more intuitive to do it the same way you would if you were sitting in a cockpit.

Comment Re:Normally I'm pro regulation (Score 4, Insightful) 146

The vast majority of people, even the really smart ones working for the justice system aren't expert biologists able to evaluate the quality of a lab's work. Neither would they be granted enough access to actually run a proper evaluation, even if they did have the knowledge.

And what's the benefit to allowing a lab that produces incorrect results to keep operating?

We need both. Regulation ensures that every lab performs correctly, and the free market ensures the labs compete against each other on the price and services they offer. With both those things in place and working properly we can ensure you can't go wrong by choosing a lab, and just have to concentrate on finding one that does what you need at an acceptable price and speed.

Comment Re:Stahp (Score 1) 299

Nonsense. "Ubiquitous" doesn't mean "all that is in existence", it means "widespread". Obviously there will be plenty around before the last non-self driving car is gone.

And why would new infrastructure be needed? Current self-driving cars manage with the current infrastructure just fine.

At any rate, roads need maintenance once in a while anyway, so improvements for self-driving cars, should any be needed are easily rolled into that. And I imagine people will greatly appreciate the reduced insurance costs, which will drive adoption.

Comment Re:Stahp (Score 1) 299

Yeah, and there was this guy who thought the world only had a need for 4 computers...

There will be plenty. For one, they're absolutely huge for the transport industry -- a driver that doesn't get tired, doesn't complain, earns no money, and isn't subject to labor regulations. The first company using self driving trucks will gain a large benefit, because trucks already go as fast as they can, so the company that has trucks that never stop will obviously deliver merchandise faster.

They're a huge thing for companies like Uber, too. If you think of it, a taxi driver is performing a largely mechanical task anyway.

Then there's the enormous personal convenience, a car that can drive you to work while you sleep, read, or finish some paperwork inside, then drives back home, drives your wife to the store, then drives back to work to pick you up. That, right there, is a car that's doing the work of two.

There's really no reason for them not to be ubiquitous. There's no physical law that forbids them from existing and it's just a matter of tech development to get there. There are multiple parties all working on it, precisely because it's so huge.

Comment Re:Justice is blind (Score 4, Informative) 284

It wasn't just that.

It helped a lot that Gawker had complete morons testifying for their side, which managed to make themselves look completely unsympathetic without any assistance. There's a valuable lesson here: don't be a snarky asshole in court. People might have to hold their tongue when they're on your website and you make the rules, but it's ill advised when you're the one in the vulnerable position.

And there's that the whole mess made Hogan lose a very lucrative contract, and he got awarded damages for that. Obviously it costs less to just embarrass an average joe than if your actions make somebody lose on earning millions.

Comment Re:HTML5 and its APIs make apps obsolete (Score 1) 278

Sure, if you have bandwidth to spare, don't mind never owning any of your apps, and are fine with completely being at the mercy of the publisher.

I highly prefer apps because I retain some measure of control. It wants to poke around where it shouldn't now? Well, I don't have to install the update. It gets discontinued? I still have it locally and have time to look for a replacement.

Comment Re:Solar panels? (Score 1) 228

Do some math.

Insolation at the surface is about 1 kw / m^2 in perfect conditions. A good solar panel might be 20% efficient, so 200W/m^2 = 0.2 kW/m^2. Tesla battery = 60 kWh. 60 / 0.2 = 300 hours to charge the battery, per square meter of solar panel in absolutely optimal, cloudless conditions.

Also, for comparison, 1 HP = 745W.

Comment Nah, screw that (Score 3, Insightful) 268

I want more open source stuff, not more free stuff. I don't want more closed source applications on Linux, I want more open ones. Linux moves fast, and any closed source software is a pain in the ass.

There's also that free as in beer but closed source is pretty much synonymous with "we track your every move", because they've got to pay the bills somehow.

Hell, Windows 10 costs money, and it has bloody ads in the start menu. Screw that.

Comment Re:Running Indian Point to Failure (Score 1) 206

That's excellent logic there. I suppose there is no problem with unmaintained rusty bridges either. It's been standing like that for many years, therefore it's not going to fall all of a sudden, right?

Look, I'm not completely unsympathetic to nuclear power, but fighting to keep a plant online that's had a long history of problems is not in your interest if you want to keep it around. Nature cannot be fooled. Either you do things right, or something will go wrong sooner or later, and another Fukushima isn't going to be good PR for nuclear power.

Anybody interested in nuclear power surviving should be very aggressively taking care of any issues that pop up, because most of the problem isn't with tech, but with people.

Comment How anticlimatic (Score 3, Insightful) 264

If that's really intentional on Rusty's part, I would have liked to have some sort of announcement, and some sort of goodbye. Perhaps a post-mortem analysis. And ideally, have it remain online frozen, as an archive, because in the past there have been many very good articles on it, before it went to shit.

Of course, the site has already been effectively dead for what, more than a decade now, I think? It's a real pity, because it used to be a really cool place where interesting, and sometimes important (Wikipedia, OpenNIC, etc) discussions took place.

The place was unique enough that it took me years to find a suitable replacement for it.

Comment Re:Nuclear (Score 1) 485

The thing is that those problems have permanent solutions.

I can see a day when we have a grid that can be run purely on wind and solar. It may take some tech and development, but once it's there, it's there.

On the other hand, there won't be a day when radioactivity becomes a simple and pleasant thing to handle.

So it may well happen that eventually we'll decide that the hassle of dealing with variable power sources is less than the hassle of dealing with radioactivity.

Slashdot Top Deals

ASHes to ASHes, DOS to DOS.

Working...