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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Sounds improbable (Score 1) 513

The DNA on the lighter matched DNA from the rape itself. The importance of the lighter is that it was sold during the time of the rape in that narrow area - placing the rapist as a resident of that area at the time, and giving high probability that a scan of all the residents would strongly indicate who the attacker was. If the lighter wasn't found, this search couldn't be justified as the rapist could come from anywhere.

So the killer put his lighter in her bag? Isn't it more likely that it was her lighter and she let someone else use it? In which case the 'narrow area' isn't significant, it just tells you where she got it, which apparently included the town where she lived. Not exactly a shocking clue.

Comment Re:Protip: (Score 1) 367

By the state's logic, if he hadn't been following so close, the accident wouldn't have happened. In reality, different vehicles have different stopping characteristics. In my car, I *can* stand on the brakes and make it stop on a dime (practiced in autocross racing). In my SUV, if someone stopped like that, they'd be be crushed. It's the difference between a performance sports car, and a truck.

So you recognize that different vehicles have different stopping characteristics... but are confused as how you could vary distance so as to prevent hitting the car in front of you when driving your SUV.

Comment Re:Right... (Score 1) 375

The fact that a teacher participated actively in one video will destroy any remaining chance they might have had.)

I'd be very worried if I were that teacher right now. They suspended a student.... who says they won't suspend the teacher who participated yet, to make an example of the teacher, emphasize their disapproval, and dig their head further into their Streissand-effect hole in the sand?

Union.

Comment Re:I saw this one a mile away (Score 2) 165

As slightly less proud Canadian I'd like to point out -

"Canadian Justice Department lawyer Diba Majzub argued that it didn’t matter U.S. prosecutors falsely portrayed Adekeye as a Nigerian scofflaw who was a flight risk. He filed three thick volumes of legal precedent and emphasized that only five times since the current Extradition Act was enacted in 1999 has a judge sought to stay proceedings because of abuse of process. A stay required extraordinary misconduct, he said."

So it seems our governments do in fact agree that what's good for Cisco is good for the nation(s).

Comment Re:how much was actually done by the US gov't? (Score 4, Informative) 165

Let me help you.

'U.S. prosecutors acted outrageously'...
'The U.S. claimed'...
'U.S. prosecutors falsely portrayed'...
'left the U.S. in 2008 and was denied re-entry when he attempted to return to participate in the litigation'

So yes, I guess they really were Cisco's attorneys.

Comment Re:rhetorical question (Score 1) 122

Well if it was really important why didn't they have someone teleport over to earth to tell people right away? Sending a signal they know will take a week when they could have travelled faster than the speed of light, or even just teleported a message over clearly indicates that they didn't want it solved. I question the lot of them, its clearly a conspiracy. All of them did it, case closed and it didn't take Poirot to solve it.

Wait I got one. A murder takes place in 1 week. A recording is made and sent back in time to police now. They go to 6 days in the future and interview the victim and suspects about the murder that takes place the next day but of course everyone denies any knowledge of it. They take the victim back to the present and give him to the coroner telling saying he's been dead for several hours, no matter what the victim might argue to the contrary. Now, did the victim die in a week, or during the autopsy?

Comment Re:The situation is much more complicated than tha (Score 1) 364

1) You pay $40/month for an unlimited 10Mbps connection, but can only get 10Mbps at 2-4am in the morning. Other times, because of high network usage, you get an unstable connection that goes 3-5Mbps, or even slower during peak times. 2) You pay $40/month for a 10Mbps connection with a 100GB limit. Most of the time, your connection speed is around 10Mbps, but you just need to watch how much you download. There is a tool provided for you by the ISP to check your usage, updated daily.

You forgot an option:
3) You pay $40/month for a 10Mbps connection with a 40GB limit., but can only get 10Mbps at 2-4am in the morning. Other times, because of high network usage, you get an unstable connection that goes 3-5Mbps, or even slower during peak times.

The problem is you are starting with a questionable initial premise. You are equating total monthly usage with maximum use at any given moment. The two are not necessarily directly related.

There are bound to be certain times which are most heavily used, simply because those are times when people can be online using it. Sure a cap might make someone decide to forgo a download of a large game from Steam or their consoles online store when they could just pick up a copy instead. But when they are using the internet will still tend to be during those peak hours.

The degree to which it restricts use (a bad thing) will be greater than the amount it reduces congestion (a good thing). A large bad for small gain isn't a good trade.

To make the obligatory car analogy, if your town taxed its citizens based on monthly car mileage, would that be effective at cutting down on rush hour traffic? Or would people still drive to and from work, but just cut down on driving for non necessities? How would making the roads a ghostland at midnight help you get to work faster on monday morning?

The fact is most ISPs in Canada have put in caps in the last few years. The holdouts were the independents who piggyback on Bell and this decision as you seem to understand was really about trying to limit them by taking away the only thing they really had left to differentiate themselves with. So when you talk about the magic which will happen, sorry, if it was going to happen it would have already. It didn't.

Comment Re:You can't con a con (Score 1) 810

There are many things in this world that happen that cannot be readily explained. My wife was praying to God and asked him for a sign that she was doing the right thing. At that moment all the power int he house went out, and then came back on a minute later. I've been there 9 years and that is one of 2 times that we lsot power. Even if it was just coincidence, the odds against it happening right then, at that question, would be pretty staggering I think. (Especially since it was the only time she asked for a sign!).

So out of curiosity, have you tracked down the person who asked god for a sign that other time? Or do you think the odds of it happening at precisely that moment were for some reason higher?

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (4) How many times do we have to tell you, "No prior art!"

Working...