Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


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).


Comment: Re:Slight factual error (Score 1) 270

by Aighearach (#49166305) Attached to: It's Official: NSA Spying Is Hurting the US Tech Economy

Really? You spend time to reply and reply and reply, and even call me "stupid," you must feel really smart to magically know how people feel. You seem to think I "wasted" my time, or that you personally were who I was writing for. Guess what, I've been online since before the internet was public, and I've never written you even one personal message.

As for feeling "stupid" or not, lets put it this way: I stand by my analysis, and further, you didn't even succeed in addressing it. None of the intended readers need your name-calling to read the ideas and claims and decide what has value. To take it to another level, I can point out that my analysis is actually mainstream, past-tense stuff about an already-shrunken industry.

Some hand-waving about "anecdotal shit," well, like you say, we could look up the numbers. ;) To you it is an "anecdote" that rail shipping is an already-declined industry in the US. It is an obvious reality for those of us here. I don't need numbers, because Americans can go out and see for themselves. Like your claim about oil train cars. You seem totally unaware that we do that using trucks, or even that it is possible. You don't know oil tanker trucks are a thing. You're probably from a place without them. You're dreaming that numbers you don't provide will refute "anecdotes," but you don't provide them. Why? Is it because they prove you wrong, or because you don't know where to look? If you wanted to challenge my claims with numbers, you failed.

Comment: Re:Slight factual error (Score 1) 270

by Aighearach (#49155541) Attached to: It's Official: NSA Spying Is Hurting the US Tech Economy

So, your point is that... because something exists and is important to niche users, it must not be true that it isn't used "a lot?" Huh?

You seem really hung up on absolutes. But I didn't use any. I didn't (and wouldn't) say that trains aren't used, I said we don't use them very much. And indeed, most things that were moved by train in the US in the past are now moved by trucks. If you ever visit the USA, I recommend you take a side trip through a few random, 30+ year old industrial parks. What you'll find is railroad crossing on the roads, but weeds on the unused tracks. Even places where the tracks are still used, they'll usually have weeds on the business access sections, because nobody cares. You'll find loading bays next to the tracks converted for loading trucks. Are there still trains? Yes, of course.

Outside of certain regional commuter routes, passenger trains are used as a luxury alternative to... buses. They do not often arrive more than 10% faster than a bus. And nobody cares, because if they were in a hurry, they would have flown.

"A couple of recent accidents" only tells you that trains exist. It tells you nothing about the relative number, or what is usually used for shipping.

And if you spent time on US roads, you'd quickly realize that there are a large number of oil tanker trucks. You can stand on the side of a major freeway and count them. On the west coast there are numerous places where there is only 1 major north-south freeway, and 1 major north-south railway, side by side. You can stand there and count oil cars. You'll see a few on the tracks; maybe even 1 train car for every 100 trucks. Presumably if you live right next to an oil distribution facility you'll see more rail cars than that. We have various petroleum distribution facilities in my town, because we're at a rail junction that connects to other regions. So they built them here, many years ago. But guess what? They removed all but 1 track of rail access! And that one has weeds. I don't think I've seen a train parked there for over 20 years. But if you have to drive in that neighborhood, you encounter a large number of oil and gas trucks. Someday they'll build a new facility... closer to the freeway! But for now they only lose 10 minutes by being stuck out by the railroad tracks, and they already have the storage tanks.

Oh, gosh, you saw a train on tee vee, they must be falling from the sky! Golly gee!

It should be noted that our electric light rail are almost all modern, except for BART in the Bay Area. (No faulting BART, they pioneered the field) Trains are well used... at the municipal level, for moving people short distances. We're not going to build expensive high speed crap for that. They're faster than driving, and have bike racks. They connect the `burbs.

Comment: Re:Of course they are (Score 1) 270

by Aighearach (#49135357) Attached to: It's Official: NSA Spying Is Hurting the US Tech Economy

Your theory about the markets represents considerable original research, I don't think it is useful to just assert those ideas as facts or as changes that have happened in the markets. You're obviously aware of specific pieces of equipment that used to have a capability gap that no longer does; you mentioned CNC mills, for example. But just waving your hands and asserting the US no longer has manufacturing sector equipment exports that are difficult to replace, well that just shows ignorance of US exports in that sector. It isn't magic, so it doesn't apply to random things like CNC mills, which are somewhat trivial.

If you ever visit the US you'll find out how funny the trains comment is; we don't really use many trains. It would be somewhat predictable that modes of transport we don't use don't have much investment. It has nothing to do with complacency. I doubt the existing horse-drawn carriages are state-of-the-art, either. Maybe you can sell the sleigh industry on upgrades.
US has 14% of the global machinery equipment market. Export leaders included: construction machinery, engine equipment, turbines and turbine generator sets, and agricultural equipment.

Comment: Re:What it really reveals (Score 1) 112

by Aighearach (#49135083) Attached to: TrueCrypt Audit Back On Track After Silence and Uncertainty

Nonsense, it is absolutely do-able to have a realistic understanding of your actual security. The impossibility of secrecy does not refuse the usefulness of true information.

And I agree, there are few things more secure than the best available open offerings. But well financed law enforcement and security agencies are outside of that security. That the attack vectors are not revealed as such in the media is meaningless when the necessary capabilities are know to be possessed by them, and where their tactics are considered secret.

Luckily once somebody being honest about the security situation understands all that, they can just get on with locking out black hats, which is what the software can do; protect you from those without legal recourse to tell your ISP what to do. You just can't protect your privacy from government actors based solely on technology. They're in the position to MITM anything, to keylog anything, to anything anything.

Comment: Re:Of course they are (Score 2, Interesting) 270

by Aighearach (#49131581) Attached to: It's Official: NSA Spying Is Hurting the US Tech Economy

Yes, interestingly the US customers are also backing away from Chinese products for the same reasons the Chinese are backing away from American products. So who is hurt again? All you have to do to see who this hurts and who it benefits is to look at the trade balance. Since Americans buy more Chinese stuff than Chinese buy American stuff, it seems to me the obvious answer is that it will help the US "tech economy."

Also, most of the American exports are not commodity items that can be replaced, but factory machines and related equipment where there isn't strong competition. That is equipment they simply must buy in order to be competitive on export quality. So even in a trade war setting, US exports would only go down a little bit, and most of the "US brands" banned are actually manufactured in Asia. So they'd be cutting at their own face. Meanwhile, tech companies with US manufacturing like Texas Instruments would benefit substantially from any such conflict because trade wars drive production to return home.

I certainly agree there is likely to be a net negative for existing US brands, but most of that loss would be to local competition that is willing to manufacture here. The same American companies that are nervous about Chinese spying and backdoors are usually less worried about NSA spying, because the assumption is that the NSA acts to benefit US industry.

Comment: Re:List of folks with permanent rights of way (Score 1) 290

by Aighearach (#49131505) Attached to: How Walking With Smartphones May Have Changed Pedestrian Etiquette

He doesn't need a citation to mention something easily searchable. Stop being a baby. I know you're new here, but you're not that green. Surely you're capable of doing a basic search on the context: "Idaho stop traffic safety." According to wikipedia there was 1 study and it showed a slight increase in safety.

The reason for "citation needed" when not actually posting to wikipedia is to challenge the accuracy of something asserted, where you believe the actual citation would disprove the claim, or prove biased sources.

In this case, you're requesting a citation, where you could have easily checked and found out that the only source agrees with the claim. People who actually care to read the study would have searched for it right away, and wouldn't have relied on a link anyways. They'd have to do a search even with the link, to find out if it was to the most relevant study.

Also, the maneuver in question increases bicycle rule compliance in general, it doesn't decrease it. The grandparent's logic for it being dangerous to children is absurd; children need to be supervised, and "what would children do if they don't learn anything and just try to mimic adult behavior" is not a valid basis for writing law. If a person bought into that, they'd have to agree to ban anything for adults that is not also suitable for children. It goes way beyond "think of the children" and is somehow even stupider.

Comment: Re: Gotta look at the source... (Score 1) 252

by Aighearach (#49131363) Attached to: No Tech Bubble Here, Says CNN: "This Time It's Different."

If your stock investments are worth 1/2 what they were 8 years ago, that just proves you chose exclusively high-risk investments.

Guess what? "High risk" doesn't mean, "more money for free." The majority of your investments should be in something with low long-term risk, like the S&P 500 index. That is the standard thing that is recommended, and it beats the market. The most mainstream, brainless (that is a compliment here!) investment option you can choose, and it is 25%+ up over any historical high. That is what anybody's 401k should be at, 25%+ because 401k isn't for day trading or nonsense, it is just to sock retirement money away in an effective manner with tax advantages.

The fact that idiots can easily lose their retirement savings by choosing risk instead of retirement security, that is a good argument in favor of traditional pensions instead of 401k programs, but it doesn't tell you anything about the stock market, the economy, or economic trends.

Comment: Re:Last week ... (Score 1) 290

by Aighearach (#49107453) Attached to: How Walking With Smartphones May Have Changed Pedestrian Etiquette

Yeah, here we have both rules, if there was a cop there who cared about giving out tickets, they'd both get tickets, and the driver would be paying more. :)

Some places the details are hyper-technical, too; if you're required to yield to the person already there, there is no emergency, and there is no cause for the horn. This is true even if he was in violation of the crosswalk rules. And if he was scared back onto the island by the actions, that could actually be "criminal mischief," which often includes any time that you're making noise with the purpose of obstructing traffic. The driver could actually go to jail, except that cops only charge pedestrians with "criminal mischief" so it wouldn't happen. But if you scared them back, it would certainly be a failure to yield.

Where I am, drivers know to expect assertive pedestrians who take their turn when the light changes.

Comment: Re:Tie your shoes (Score 1) 290

by Aighearach (#49107399) Attached to: How Walking With Smartphones May Have Changed Pedestrian Etiquette

It is more effective to stop and give them a really nasty mean-face. Pretending to tie your shoes is so passive-aggressive you've lost the aggression, and any potential influence on their future behavior.

If you whack them in the head they'll just learn there are evil people who will assault them. It wouldn't work. But dirty looks in a context where they have to modify their behavior and go around, it can have deep psychological impact on their subconscious attitudes.

Comment: Re:List of folks with permanent rights of way (Score 4, Informative) 290

by Aighearach (#49107365) Attached to: How Walking With Smartphones May Have Changed Pedestrian Etiquette

In Idaho bicycles can treat stop signs as yield signs. When a bike does a "rolling-stop" through a stop-sign, it is called an "Idaho stop." Many states are legalizing it. It passes most places it is considered. Expect it to be the norm in 20 years. Just like, there was a time where only a few states allowed a right turn at a red light; now it is nearly universal. Because it works. My dad told me a story about driving in the midwest when he was a kid, and they didn't have that rule yet. He made a right turn on red, and had people shouting at him for just brazenly running a light! lol "it just seemed so natural"

In my State bicycles are allowed to use the sidewalks. Also, vechicles with 3-or-less wheels that are hardware limited to 15mph or less are considered bicycles, and can also use the sidewalk. (this was to allow Segways without going into the weeds and endorsing specific wheel configurations) Luckily, pedestrians have the right-of-way and the bicycles are required to always yield.

The speed limit applies to the street, not the sidewalk. They'll beat that ticket. However, many places have a rule that bicycles on the sidewalk have to go walking speed, so there might be a different non-speeding ticket they can get. Most cyclists don't actually go over the 20MPH of a school zone, certainly not over 25 which is the normal real speed. (limit+5 is standard for cars, except in places where it is limit+8)

There are real problems with cyclists that ride poorly and don't follow the rules, but I'm not convinced you know the rules well enough that you're driving according to them. ;)

Comment: Re:List of folks with permanent rights of way (Score 1) 290

by Aighearach (#49107325) Attached to: How Walking With Smartphones May Have Changed Pedestrian Etiquette

It depends on the location. In the Pacific Northwest there are clear rules for sharing the road, and if you don't share it with bicyclists you will hit them, because they really do use the space allotted to them. You'll probably lose your license, too, if it was your fault. Vehicle-on-bicycle or -pedestrian is taken seriously. If your phone records show you were distracted, and you kill them, you'll go to prison. Real prison.

As a pedestrian, if it is my turn, I can walk. They *will* yield. I understand, in Boston I'd be dead and even the cops would blame me. But that isn't universal.

The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.