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. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Sterile and shattered. (Score 1) 273

I don't see why we would have to send a manned probe. Men require life support, space to live, extreme limits in G forces, extreme radiation shielding, protection from the elements (think running into debris at relativistic speeds), and probably a means to establish a colony on the other side, all of which assumes there is something suitable on the other side to establish a colony on.

Instead we could send a robotic explore there in say 80 years (spending half the time speeding up to light-speed, half the time decelerating back down), with sufficient instrumentation and propultion to navigate the remote star system. It would essentially spend the majority of its time in hibernation except for the engines. I remember watching a Carl Sagan documentary where he postulated that going fast enough, you could pick up fuel on the way. Going fast enough, you run across enough lose hydrogen in deep space to build a small pressure on the front of the craft. IF you could set up some sort of collector and compressor on board, you could then use the collected hydrogen as propellant sending out the back end. This would reduce the size of the craft, so all you would need is a high-output nuclear power generator to drive the ions out for 80+ years. Once it gets there, take a bunch of pics, collect data from small daughter probes launched onto suitable surfaces, and relay that information back to earth, 40 years after arrival. Thats what a mission to one of these solar systems will look like. Were talking a 500 year span of missions by the time we can send humans.

Comment Re:Simple (Score 4, Insightful) 155

By not using java you hurt Oracle in two ways.

1st. You learn something else. This means their technology gets a lower market share, and less development mindshare. You learn something else (or become more fluent in other languages). This ,means they have a less compelling product to sell that is slightly less a case of "everyone knows Java". This is especially true when it comes to new developers. When you go to get a job in enterprise, using something else means Java won't be their pic for licensing.

2nd. The language gets less use and therefore less bugs are discovered, less optimization as real-world issues get passed back to the developers. Using Java less means Oracle has a less valuable language.

Comment Re: Thanks Obama (Score 1, Insightful) 217

There is nothing President Trump can do that some media out there won't paint as badly for him as fast as possible. If Trump had personally financed a subsidiary, the NYT would still find some dog shit to smear him with. Where's the bright side of media? The puff pieces they put out that at least give Americans hope their country is still the greatest place to live? These Media wars are so bad, it's like watching that scene in The Godfather when Michael says "We have reporters on payroll, we can paint this cop as a crooked cop". Here, it's the parties that are the rackets, and Trump is just the next cop on the street.

Comment Re:Why not buy Intel? (Score 5, Insightful) 267

That would be a terrible move on Apple's part. They would squander a fortune to buy a company, and then implode that company's primary source of revenue. Intel focuses heavily on server chips, components like network interface cards for datacenter applications, and motherboard chipsets, built-in graphics, etc... . However, they are not the only game in town. This wouldn't damage so much the PC industry and prop up Apple, so much as hand a huge segment of the market over to AMD. Then, intel would be worth peanuts.

I doubt most people know what it actually takes to design and manufacture a CPU like an i7. There is huge investments in R&D, and then even bigger investments in the foundries to make said chip. It would significantly increase the cost of a CPU to something like $4000/pop if the only customers were about 20,000,000 Macs a year. Even if Apple managed to double their sales as being the only "Intel computer" available, their margins would topple and the stock would crash.

Comment Re: I feel that lone sysadmin's pain (Score 2, Informative) 356

I usually have a /trash directory in my Linux servers, I have moved the rm command to "removed" and wrote a sweet script named rm which moves files/folders to /trash. Then a cron job "removes" files and folders from trash after 48 hours. Works awesome unless I'm space-bound, and I usually am not. Saved my ass more than once!

Comment Re:Read as: (Score 4, Insightful) 71

The DOJ is butt-hurt. But too bad. The US can't just decide that their warrants are valid EVERYWHERE, just because a company operates in the US as well. What happens when China wants data stored by Boeing in the US, because Boeing has offices in China, and there is a law-suit? There is a reason why the laws are written like this. If the drug traffickers data was so instrumental to the case, and the justification for the warrant is so compelling, then the US attorney should contact authorities in Ireland and seek the Irish courts to issue a warrant to MS.

If there is anything fishy, they won't go that route, and if there isn't, an extra set of judicial eyes on the facts of the case can't hurt.

Comment Re:Regulatory Solutions (Score 0) 167

People keep making this argument about the analogy between Tesla's feature and the autopilot feature of airplanes, but how many normal people know an airplane's autopilot works?

That doesn't matter. The car specifically tells you to pay attention. So even if your perception was "The one time I flew, I didn't see a pilot or hear an announcement." You are still told that you have to maintain control of your car. Warning label argument still applies.

It's a pointless comparison unless it's a widely known fact among the general public, which I'd argue it is not.

But the general public doesn't matter. Its the segment of the public that can afford $80,000 on a car. I'd make the argument they tend to fly quite a bit and notice the $150,000/year employee the airlines keep on staff who sit at the front.

I'll bet most people have the same mis-impression of an airline's autopilot feature.

They have that warning label again, and anyone who has purchased one of these vehicles knows pretty fast the features and limits of its "autopilot".

Even so, I think we're just in a collective learning curve regarding semi-autonomous vehicles. Eventually, the cars will become fully autonomous anyhow, so I'm not terrible concerned. The fact that collisions are down by 40% validates what many of us long believed, which is that computers are going to be much safer drivers than humans. And this is just a very early and flawed first iteration of the technology to come.

Here I absolutely agree with you, 100%.

Comment Re:Regulatory Solutions (Score 1) 167

But I'm willing to bet 100% of Tesla owners have flown SOMEWHERE before, where an AutoPilot was used, but never without a PILOT. The fact that it's industry jargon doesn't matter. It's becoming closer and closer to our natural understanding every day. The vehicle warns you anyhow, and even if you thought "well there wasn't a pilot in the airplane who flew me to LAX last time I traveled, this car must be able to run sans-driver!", the car tells you strait up that you must keep at attention.

If a car tells you "5 star safety rating!" and you elect not to strap the car seat in properly *despite* all the warning labels and instructions, does that mean you can sue the auto manufacturer, or fault them because "5 star means perfect"? No. Of course not. Implying otherwise is obtuse.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with money is it costs too much!