Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:customer-centric (Score 1) 419

This isn't seizing. This is ordering an entity to produce evidence. Yes, the US could order a US company to produce the contents of a safe deposit box in Europe. If the company doesn't comply, the US arm would be fined until it does comply. That is if the US couldn't get cooperation from local authorities to get it seized.

The US government isn't saying anything about other countries' laws not applying. The US government is saying its own do. Where there is a conflict, it really isn't the US government's problem, it's MS' problem.

And this whole thing works in reverse too. US companies in the EU are required to comply with EU laws, including producing evidence that is outside of the EU.

Just to wonder, if you really believe that out of the US is out of the US' reach, you must be really shocked to hear of the IRS now finding out about money in offshore accounts and taxing people on it, eh?

Comment NIMBYs? Crackpots? (Score 5, Informative) 521

California has had 2-3 of these running for decades. Yes, newer ones are bigger, but even the smaller ones like the one in Coalinga can fry a bird if it flies near the focal point.

Maybe just stop building these. They are quite expensive. They are the most expensive source of electricity, bar none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... (sort by levelised cost).

Comment it's not not an effort (Score 2) 125

"that may result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact the security, availability, confidentiality, or integrity of an information system or information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting an information system."

It's not an effort (authorized or unauthorized) to adversely impact any of those things. It is an effort to deliver video.

You changed "effort" to "impact". You're changing the meaning of the sentence.

If someone were to hijack Netflix' traffic to create an effort to deny service, then that would be a denial of service attack and ISPs could counter that, as ISPs already counter DoS attacks.

Comment no, it's not true (Score 5, Informative) 125

According to the bill a threat is anything which is anything which is part of an unauthorized effort to deny access. Netflix streaming which inadvertently leads to a denial of access would not be part of an effort to deny access.

Here is the bill.

http://www.feinstein.senate.go...

Comment they do have redundancy (Score 1) 179

One of the companies who makes the launch system was required to take out a license to produce the boosters themselves. This is the backup plan.

It's not a great backup plan, because just having the plans and license doesn't mean you necessarily can make them, especially with the reliability needed for defense launches.

Comment Re:Shame the light itself sucks (Score 1) 103

What 900 lumen light are you using?

I've got a couple 900 lumen lights and they're bright enough that if I shine them at cars the drivers are mildly upset about the brightness. It's like hitting them with high beams (although not covering as much area as a headlight).

I agree 200 lumens and the down-facing output is strange. I expect this is for urban riders who mostly use the streetlights to see.

Comment in simplified terms, it's forward error correction (Score 1) 129

And why do they use TCP if they are trying to avoid retransmissions due to lost/corrupt packets?

This seems to say that it's most trying to avoid link-layer retransmission, not transport-layer. So somehow I need to figure out all the links my transmission is traversing and disable link-layer retransmission on all of them?

Comment people complain about the DRM (Score 2) 477

But there is no legal alternative. AACS may suck in principle, but it has been broken. I can buy a Blu-Ray and rip it bit-for-bit. There is no other HD content you are offered you can do this for. Netflix? Nope. Amazon/iTunes/UltraViolet/etc.? Nope.

And HDCP? It sure is a pain in the butt. But it is on every other bit of legal HD studio content too. You cannot watch Hollywood HD content on any device in your house unless it has a built-in display (like a laptop, tablet or phone) or has HDCP. It's not just Blu-Ray, it's Netflix, iTunes, etc. So if you're going to put down Blu-Ray for that, you're just going to have to turn pirate or else watch in SD.

The thing that really gets me about Blu-Ray, which other systems don't have, is all those stupid forced previews before the movies. As long as the studios put that junk on their Blu-Ray discs, they are going to discourage people from buying Blu-Ray discs. And that's on top of the existing discouragement of having to buy a drive.

Comment you missed some (Score 2) 477

3/4 U-matic was a huge success. Betacam was a huge success. 8mm was a big success. 3.5" floppy was a HUGE success.

DAT was a failure.

MiniDisc was not a failure. It was big in Europe and Japan.

DVD was partially Sony's work (split with Matsushita, just as CD was split with Philips).

A lot of the reason people think Sony has a penchant for failed formats is Sony creates a lot of formats. You can't fail if you don't try.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Working...