Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


+ - 10 Petaflop machine @110 billion yen->

Submitted by
AbbeyRoad writes "Five times faster than the current top supercomputer, a Cray Inc. system in the U.S. at Oak Ridge National Laboratory called Jaguar, the K Computer will stitch together 80,000 processors, each equipped with eight cores for a total of 640,000 electronic brains. The K computer aims to once again vault the country to the top of the global supercomputer rankings with a system capable of tackling complex problems related to climate change and weather patterns. It could also provide Japan Inc. with a powerful computational tool in the search for breakthroughs in drugs, materials and new technologies."
Link to Original Source

Comment: You can't patent a business process (Score 1) 434

by AbbeyRoad (#33795078) Attached to: Google Patent Proposes $2 Fee To Skip Commercials

A business process, like pure math, and like pure software is not patentable in many jurisdictions. What is being described here is a BUSINESS PROCESS, and lacks key patentability criteria under current patent law.

Whoever came up with this patent doesn't understand IP.

It probably won't get approved.

It certainly won't get approved world-wide.

Comment: Re:The IPv6 nightmare begins with it's design... (Score 4, Interesting) 717

by AbbeyRoad (#33747274) Attached to: There Is No Plan B, the Ugly Transition To IPv6

Basically, this is what is going to happen:

Some ISP somewhere with a /20 is going to project that in 6 months time they will be out of IPs,
and it's going to be too expensive to buy another /20.

So they are going to buy some Cisco-hardware-NAT-appliance and say to their customers: "look here,
you are all on NAT from now on, if you want a real IP you pay extra."

This NAT box will NAT a /20 to a /24 of temp addresses+ports. It will be plug-n-play and
easier than setting up IPv6.

99.9% of customers won't read the announcement and won't notice. They are all NATing through
their DSL modems anyway, and this Cisco equipment will have hacks for all those special
apps that need it to work behind double NATing.

And no one will ever think of switching to IPv6


Comment: Re:The IPv6 nightmare begins with it's design... (Score 2, Insightful) 717

by AbbeyRoad (#33746732) Attached to: There Is No Plan B, the Ugly Transition To IPv6

> The only thing that *fails* is when [...]

thats quite a lot of things failing.

> similar to using an NAT router

no, there are 100 million people connected to the internet using ADSL and all *their* stuff works fine

why, because NAT is a solved problem with lot's of workarounds

ergo: IPv6 is just NAT all over again

we might as well solve the IPv4 address-space problem with huge /8 NAT'd networks.

good luck to the 0.0000001% of the Internet that has "successfully" switch to IPv6 after 20 years of IPv6 promotion.


+ - Ex-Air Force come clean on UFO visits->

Submitted by
AbbeyRoad writes "An ex-U.S. air force chief has given an astonishing account of an encounter with a UFO at an air force base in Suffolk. Charles Halt is one of a number of senior former airmen who went public today over claims that UFOs had tampered with nuclear missiles in the U.S. and the UK. Mr Halt, who retired in 1991, told a press conference that he was working at RAF Bentwater near Rendelsham in Suffolk in 1980 when he had the terrifying encounter. He said that early one morning in December 1980 several of his base's security forces saw lights in the forest near Woodbridge."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? (Score 1) 340

by AbbeyRoad (#33676370) Attached to: UK Man Prevented From Finding Chipped Pet Under Data Protection Act

"Treated" by who?

You have to file a charge in order for there to be a crime.

The guy needs to contact the public prosecutor to get him to take up the case and get a court order in the correct jurisdiction.

It's only because he doesn't understand the legal process that he can't get his info.


Comment: Company may be perfectly right (Score 3, Informative) 340

by AbbeyRoad (#33674984) Attached to: UK Man Prevented From Finding Chipped Pet Under Data Protection Act

The company is perfectly right. The judge only refused because the guy asked the wrong judge. This is explained in the article.

The company also is being entirely cooperative and "would encourage Mr Moorhouse to go to a solicitor and start a civil case".

Through a civil case he would be able to get a court order. I don't even think he would need a lawyer for this.

This law is in line with good civil rights: it's the same law that prevents Google from disclosing info about your searches.

"One Architecture, One OS" also translates as "One Egg, One Basket".