Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Dishonesty, sneakiness: MS owns Mozilla Foundation (Score 1) 150 150

"Yahoo" search is Bing with modifications in who gets paid. Evidence: The Microsoft article, Advertise on the Yahoo Bing Network - Bing Ads.

Since Microsoft is now apparently the major way that the Mozilla Foundation makes money, Microsoft essentially owns Firefox, or is in a position to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Comment: Holy Hardware Batman (Score 2) 7 7

From TFA there was no pic of the UI, nor any mention of tech specs aside from a lot of nebulous details. From nVidia's website ...


DIGITS DevBox includes:

* Four TITAN X GPUs with 12GB of memory per GPU
* 64GB DDR4
* Asus X99-E WS workstation class motherboard with 4-way PCI-E Gen3 x16 support
* Core i7-5930K 6 Core 3.5GHz desktop processor
* Three 3TB SATA 6Gb 3.5â Enterprise Hard Drive in RAID5
* 512GB PCI-E M.2 SSD cache for RAID
* 250GB SATA 6Gb Internal SSD
* 1600W Power Supply Unit
* Ubuntu 14.04
* NVIDIA-qualified driver
* NVIDIA® CUDA® Toolkit 7.0
* Caffe, Theano, Torch, BIDMach

.. holy crap is that a lot of GPU horsepower "just" for AI. Oh look, they are running Ubuntu :-)

They are really trying to get people on board about how much better / faster their GPU solutions are ...


The problem is that there are lot of "niche" use cases. If your problem domain maps to the GPU then yeah, mjaor speedup. If not, well, then you're SOL running on "slow" CPUs.

Comment: Re:more important question... (Score 3, Interesting) 32 32

These two were making €12,000 and €20,000 per month, before their involvement with the criminal element. One of them was seeking start up capital for a business venture and allowed himself to get roped in that way. If you give them the benefit of the doubt the best you can say about them is they were naive. In the worst reading they were greedy and willfully complicit. I suspect reality falls between those two extremes.

Comment: Re:It stopped piracy (Score 1) 394 394

Hey, while we are at it, let's outlaw murder and rape too... Oh wait... What is already illegal?

New York State limits you to carrying no more than seven condoms at a time. It's a bit of common sense legislation; there's no legitimate reason why a non-rapist would need more than seven condoms. :)

Comment: Re:'s the LAW! (Score 1) 394 394

If you argue that gun control requires an amendment to be truly legal that's one thing, but the constitution is not some immutable natural law, and can and should be amended whenever it diesn't serve society's needs.

Please name 38 States that you think would ratify such an amendment. My own State (New York) would not ratify a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, despite our hostility to gun rights; the votes simply aren't there in the New York State Senate. If New York State would not ratify it just who do you think would? Other than New Jersey there is no State that is more hostile to gun rights than New York. I could set the bar lower for you than an outright repeal and you still can't get to 38.

Politics is the art of the possible; whatever the merits or lack thereof of gun control you do need to acknowledge this reality.

Comment: Re:'s the LAW! (Score 1) 394 394

"Gun rights" and "gun controls" are not mutually incompatible. For example, mandatory mental health checks for licensees seems emininently sensible as a control, and yet there are people who cry "freedom" and "rights" even when people try to establish checks of that sort.

That would be prior restraint; in the United States we do not apply prior restraint to fundamental rights. You can be denied your right to keep and bear arms because of an established mental illness (the Federal standard requires that you be deemed mentally incompetent by a court) but you can not be compelled to prove a negative in order to exercise it.

"I have schizophrenia." <--- Denied
"Prove you don't have schizophrenia." <--- Unconstitutional

If you're not an American that may seem like a weird place to draw the line but we've got centuries of case law and tradition behind this concept. Speech works the same way too.

Comment: Re:Citizen of Belgium here (Score 1) 1254 1254

Ah, really? Well then you first then as your characterization of the existence of poor people in today's society "gives you a way to keep them in their place" is a typical lie of those claiming that others need to give more to make the problem go away.

I'm not asking you, or anyone, to give anything. I'm simply pointing out that the AC's attitude, that of someone making 20 times as much as someone else as well as holding all the power in the situation yet still believing themselves to be the victim is precisely the kind of self-deception that makes poverty possible in the first place. And I also claim this is not an accident, but an intentional aim of our current social structure - poverty exists to ensure factories have an unending supply of desperate labour, or more generally, that there's people who both hold all the power in and have every reason to support the system.

Basically, the AC followed his cultural programming which makes him unable to see the basic absurdity in what he posted, and you followed yours which prompts you to attack any perceived criticism of the basic assumptions of the system - in this case unequality and one-sided dependence - and apparently you picked an old Cold War relic memetic program to type the actual text. Or possibly got one from an old archive or something. Which is what I'm trying to figure out.

So, did you grow up during the Cold War, or...?

Comment: Re:Hurrah for health redistributuion (Score 1) 222 222

Doctors used to prescribe bloodletting for centuries, until the it was declared "unscientific". And back again...

But it has never been mandatory... Even today Red Cross and others beg and encourage would-be donors to give blood — wouldn't it be nice for the government to compel citizens to do it? A "common-sense measure to help restore the health of our great nation", uhm?

+ - Pressure mounts on Google to extend Right to Be Forgotten to US-> 1 1

Mark Wilson writes: The Right To Be Forgotten has proved controversial. A little over a year ago Google was told by a European court that it should accept requests to remove from search results pages that are "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant". Now, calls for the scheme to be extended to the US are growing ever-louder.

Consumer Watchdog not only says that the Right To Be Forgotten should be brought to the US, but also that Google's refusal to do so is an "unfair and deceptive" business practice. The consumer group is writing to the Federal Trade Commission calling for the search giant to be investigated and forced to consider the removal of certain search results. As has been proved in Europe, it's something that is not without controversy.

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re: Systemd (Score 1) 108 108

Humiliation? WTF? How's that work? It's not humiliating, it's frustrating.

Neither is appropriate for when people refuse to care about your orders because you don't have any authority over them. You aren't paying so you aren't in any position to demand features, or anything else.

Like I said, it's the "you're not my boss, fuck you" attitude that really turns people away.

It's not "you're not my boss, fuck you" but "you're not my boss, so stop giving me orders". Altough I suppose "fuck you" could very quickly follow if you refused to take the hint.

The attitude you just displayed right there. Are you a developer on any open source projects?

So disagreeing with you is "fuck you" to you? Seriously?

All the simple programs have been written.