Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Good for France. (Score 1) 136

At a very basic level, here's the deal. If you're going to operate as a multi-national company, and you're going to offer and promote your services around the globe, then you need to be responsible for and liable to the laws of the land in each of those territories..

At the basic level, here's the deal. If you're going to operation internationally, you have to deal with jerks coming at you from both directions. Some countries are going to demand that you MUST censor this, and that, and other countries will demand that you CAN'T censor that, or the other.

About the best you can do is to defy both of them.

You can't please everyone.

Comment Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp (Score 4, Funny) 162

The thing that bothers me about all of the summaries I've read, is that a timestamp less than zero (which is Jan 1 1970) is still valid - otherwise how would you represent dates before 1970???

You represent dates before 1970 with a negative number.

It's not the representation that is the problem-- it is letting the iPhone operate with today's date being a negative number.

The iPhone concludes that you have just time-travelled, and thus bricks itself to enforce the chronology protection protocol.

Comment Re:Be accountable (Score 2) 139

If you don't want to the outcome of the game to be determined by referees and shot clocks, then you need to put enough points on board so that there's no doubt that you've won.

I coach a wrestling team and that is more or less exactly what I tell my team. If you don't put enough points on the board then you risk having the referee decided the match in a way not favorable to you.

Same thing in fencing. If you don't like the way the ref calls priority, make sure you make touches on the other guy without getting touched, so there's no priority for the ref to call.

Comment Nix on the volcano, thanx (Score 1) 571

The trouble is that the times the Sat Nav gets you to your destination without incident are not at all memorable and the one time it directed you into the mouth of an active volcano is something you'll never forget.

You know, if my satnav drives me into the mouth of an active volcano even one time, I'd call that a sufficiently bad flaw to be grounds to reject the technology with prejudice.

Driving me into the mouth of a volcano will pretty much not only ruin my whole day, it will ruin my whole year.

Comment Re:Uh... let me think about it (Score 1) 571

Hate to break it to you guys, but the GPS will more reliably find you an optimum route than you can find yourself.


I've had the GPS suggest turning onto a superhighway that I was passing over on an overpass. I have both had it tell me to make a left turn that was impossible, because the road was divided with a tree-covered strip in the middle, and I have also had it tell me that I couldn't turn into the driveway of my destination but had to drive half a mile past, and take a U-turn to get there, because it thought the road was divided and it wasn't.
Once in Italy I had the GPS suggest that my car take a narrow foot-path that climbed up and over a mountain, rather than the highway that went around.

On the other hand, occasionally it suggests routes I hadn't known about.

Comment "Curved" space (Score 2) 446

Yes. Einstein theorized that spacetime is curved around objects...

More accurately, if you chose to define a geodesic as being the path taken by a light ray, then the space-time coordinate system defined by light rays in the presence of gravity obeys a non-Euclidean metric that is described by the metaphor "curved"-- by which we mean, it has the same geometry as a (Euclidean) curved surface in a higher-dimensional embedding space.

Comment Gravity is not instantaneous (Score 4, Informative) 446

Are gravitational waves different from gravity? Because this article would have you believe that the speed at which they propagate is speed of light, where as gravity has instant effect AFAIK.

Gravity does not have instantaneous effect.

Nothing physical has instantaneous effect.

In any case, if you're talking about the gravity of something just sitting unmoving, it doesn't really mean anything to say that the gravitational effect is instant, or delayed. It only makes sense to ask the question when something is accelerated away from sitting stationary, and in that case, the effect isn't instantaneous; the change in effect at an observer is at the speed of light.

Comment Compare prediction to reality [Re:Cool!] (Score 3, Informative) 446

> Nobody actually ever thought that gravity waves wouldn't exist

Which is precisely why this is such a non-important result. You don't learn much about the universe by demonstrating something everyone already knew is true. It would be much, MUCH more interesting if it didn't work.

To the contrary. Now that we have detected gravitational waves, we can start comparing the predictions to the measured data. Until we had detected them, we couldn't compare theory to data. Now we we have a possibility to do so.

That's why the MMX is cool, and this isn't.
>But it's amazing that we can actually detect it.
From a technology point of view, yes. From a theoretical perspective, not so much.

Comment If you don't like it, don't go there (Score 2) 667

Wired is a site that actually pays their writers. The internet has become a place where everybody wants stuff for free, and expects writers to be unpaid; the internet has been flailing around trying to find a model where writers can actually get paid for their work-- but having trouble finding one.

So, give them a little credit-- if you are neither willing to look at ads nor willing to pay-- basically, you want stuff for free--well, ok, don't go there: you can get plenty of free content elsewhere on the internet. It's a race for the bottom. But they are at least trying to find a way to survive and keep paying their writers.

(Hufflepuff Post is probably about the worst of the lot-- their business model is "we get millions of dollars, people who write for us get nothing.")

Comment Re:The stuff is just too expensive (Score 2) 96

I think what will kill iot is that it's just frankly too expensive.

No, that's just the way technology goes: they sell to the people willing to pay premium prices first, then the cheap bottom of the barrel manufacturers get into the action, and the price drops asymptotically toward zero.

The first hand-held calculators used to cost hundreds of dollars; now you get them free in cereal boxes.

Comment Musk considering what NASA has been researching (Score 4, Informative) 346

NASA has been researching electric aircraft for quite a while. They do have some advantages, although they're not ready to commercialize yet.

Slashdot Top Deals

Support Mental Health. Or I'll kill you.