Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:Too small (Score 2) 105

Eh, try this test then:

Look at a picture in the picture viewing app on your monitor at 1:1 resolution. Then, drag the picture left and right. Alternately, look at a web page with smooth scrolling turned on and.. scroll.. it.

If your monitor is 60hz or less, you will almost certainly be able to notice the issue. I submit that 120hz is not enough make moving a static picture around look like you're simply moving a static picture around.

Comment Re:Too small (Score 1) 105

Didn't we solve this 25 years ago with TrueType?

We did not. All of (or now, some of, but that's really kind of worse) operating system widgets assume and use pixel-based font-sizes. At the OS level, you can specify to use a different pixel size, but UI elements will have mis-sized features and cropped text if you do that, so it's made to be a pain to do, with the exception of certain features of specific applications.

Comment Re:Deafening volume (Score 1) 342

Even with ear plus in, I can't stand the volume -- it physically hurts.

If this is not just hyperbole for the purpose of highlighting your point, then you're either using the wrong ear plugs or you're not inserting them correctly. I suggest plugs like E-A-R Superfit, as they have an indicator band to show you when they're not correctly placed.

I seriously doubt there is a movie theater sound system that can be uncomfortably loud with correctly placed in-ear earplugs of 30+ db noise reduction. Most theaters I've been to have under-built the speakers and try to over-drive them anyway. Result: clipped signal that destroys the fidelity of the sound and generally sounds like shit, but isn't enough to cause hearing damage.

Comment Re:Jesus fuck grow up dorks. (Score 1) 77

If 1:1,000,000 is lower odds than the thing I was doing before, yes, I would buy that toaster. We're not discussing people that currently don't need transportation buying self-driving cars, but people who already are doing something to meet their transportation need. If that something is more dangerous than self-driving cars, then it is irrational not to switch, given the opportunity.

Comment Re:Jesus fuck grow up dorks. (Score 2) 77

The idea that you'd prefer a greater risk "just in case" you're in a collision, because you'll feel better about it if you were in control, is not a rational position to take. If the self-driving cars are genuinely and significantly safer than human drivers, the rational decision is to get over your phobia and switch to a self-driving car when you can afford one.

Comment Re:Fine (Score 1) 265

To be fair, all seats facing forward position is only for first gen autonomous cars anyway, because that's what people who buy cars expect cars to look like. After enough acceptance, some companies will start to challenge that assumption and produce other configurations. All facing rearward might be one, supposedly that is better in an accident, or perhaps all seats face inward so you can have a group conversation with everyone in the car.

Comment Re:Lots of products pass safety tests (Score 1) 265

Why would it even need to be parked near the building at all? The car could just drop you off and continue on to the municipal garage which has been specially marked to accommodate autonomous vehicles. For short visits, it could just orbit the block until you're ready to leave (probably this doesn't scale, though).

Slashdot Top Deals

If at first you don't succeed, you must be a programmer.