Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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:utf-32/ucs-4 (Score 2) 165

by Chris Dodd (#48788083) Attached to: NetHack Development Team Polls Community For Advice On Unicode
Its obvious you have little real experience with unicode, because saying 'just convert to utf-32' just papers over the problems without solving them. UTF-32 units are code points, not characters, and there are many multi-code-point (variable length) characters in utf-32. So you still have all the length and normalization problems you have with utf-8 (and even with ASCII, though people often ignore it there -- are 'a' and 'A' the same character? How do they sort?) The real 'length' problem is that people insist on using the term ambiguously -- you have string storage space and string rendering size, and the two are completely independent.

Comment: Re:Just don't upgrade the kernel with nvidia close (Score 1) 185

Not to mention that the "dumped to console" was ALSO fixed many, many years ago (8.04?) as part of their bulletproof-X initiative.

Yup. Now its just dumps you back to the gdm screen and you have to manually get your way to a text console to fix it.

Comment: Its the first-sale doctrine... (Score 2) 147

by Chris Dodd (#47111101) Attached to: Virtual DVDs, Revisited
Your "non-obvious" answer flows directly from the obvious answer that you say is wrong (and is the real answer) -- the first sale doctrine. The only reason Netflix has cooperative agreements with the studios is because they have the "threat" of simply going out and buying the DVDs. Without that, the studios would not deal with them, preferring to sell directly to customers. The cooperative agreements only come into play when the studios think they can gain a little bit by economies of scale vs forcing Netflix to go buy the discs (as happened in the Disney case you note). By doing everything they can to make Netflix as annoying for customers as possible, they try to force those customers to pay them directly rather than going through Netflix (which would make them more money -- attempted market segmentation), but as you note, it mostly just forces people to pirate instead.

Comment: It's not the studio's choice (Score 1) 490

by Chris Dodd (#46586407) Attached to: Are DVDs Inconvenient On Purpose?
> So what could be their reason for allowing users to check out physical DVDs but not to "check out" virtual DVDs in exactly the same way?

The answer is that they DON'T allow users to check out physical DVDs -- they would stop the the rental of DVDs if they could to force people to use their own distribution channels (and generate more profit). But the courts have said that if they sell DVDs, they can't prevent others from buying those DVDs and renting them out. So if they want to sell DVDs, they have to allow rental of DVDs.

Comment: Re:Hard to believe (Score 5, Insightful) 804

by Chris Dodd (#45793093) Attached to: What Would It Cost To Build a Windows Version of the Pricey New Mac Pro?

Why do I think they ordered those parts from the most expensive sources possible?

Well, if you read the fine article (the original, not the bgr rehash), you'd see that all the proces come from NewEgg -- not the cheapest, but also not the most expensive...

Comment: Basic premise is flawed as you must enter a plea (Score 1) 871

by Chris Dodd (#45060781) Attached to: Bennett Haselton's Response To That "Don't Talk to Cops" Video
The basic premise of your whole argument "The Fifth amendment means that person need not answer 'Yes' or 'No' when asked the question 'Did you commit the crime'" is simple wrong and untrue. IF someone is charged with a crime and arraigned, they must THEN enter a plea of "guilty" or "not guilty" and cannot at that time "refuse to answer". The context is key -- this questioning happens in a courtroom in front of a judge, with a lawyer present, and not in a back room somewhere. The same protections apply to a 3rd party being questioned -- they DON'T have to answer unless they are subpoenaed and in that case can have a lawyer present. Of course, insisting on these full legal protections might make the police suspicious that they are involved, but that is kind of tough to avoid.

Comment: Re:Not too long until an iceberg attack is reveale (Score 1) 192

by Chris Dodd (#43803413) Attached to: One-Time Pad From Caltech Offers Uncrackable Cryptography


The innovation here is that that nobody can make a copy of the piece of glass.

Or is it...? If Bob can create a OTP using the glass then so can Eve. All she does is sneak into his hotel room when he's asleep, generate his pad using his crystal and make a copy of it.

The point is that its a READ ONCE device -- Eve can't make a copy of the data in Bob's key without destroying the physical device containing the key...

... though his invention worked superbly -- his theory was a crock of sewage from beginning to end. -- Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War"