Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:YAY !! (Score 1) 261

The fact that you think that plutonium is somehow intrisnically immoral bothers me.

It's like if somebody in 1750 said that "crude oil will always be intrinsically immoral" because it was poisonous, smelled bad when you burned it in a lamp, and caused a stack of black, smoky pollution. There are reactor designs that exist right now which are capable of turning that plutonium into heat and short-lived decay products.

_Nothing_ is intrinsically immoral except for man perpetrating force or fraud against his fellow man.

Comment Re:Only if you can separate it from the U-232 (Score 3, Informative) 258

Not only that, but 232U and 233U are far more difficult to separate in a centrifuge than 235U and 238U are, by virtue of being far closer together in mass.

Besides, given how much hard radiation 232U kicks out, i'd be surprised if your average centrifuge could use it as an input without premature, costly failures. 235U isn't a particularly hard emitter of anything, it's just fissile. 232U is fucking nasty.

Comment Re:Honest Question (Score 1) 946

Feel free to explain how GPLing their driver (which is support code whose sole reason is to drive the hardware that generates their revenue) is going to cause them any pain whatsoever?

People give Nvidia (and ATI/AMD, and whoever else) money for graphics hardware because of the hardware's capabilities; Nvidia wouldn't suddenly make any less money overnight if their driver code was out in the open.

Comment Re:I admit, I was wrong ! (Score 1) 276

Fuck off. The guy committed a "crime" in the UK, and was neither physically present nor controlled assets in the US.

What you're suggesting is directly analogous to the UK home office extraditing someone to Saudi Arabia for talking shit on a UK website about Muhammad (PBUH.)

Comment Er... (Score 5, Informative) 286

The reason that the "core" bits of NX were always Free is because dxpc (and, thus, mlview-dxpc, from which NX sprang) is only available under the GPL.

If i was involved in dxpc (or mlview-dxpc, really, although I'd imagine most of those changes are owned by the NX folks) development I'd be lawyering up at this point, if only to get some kind of proof that I wasn't being ripped off.

Comment Re:And they expect to sell those phones? (Score 1) 426

That's NOT going to be your average user. That's going to that same class of idiot that randomly sticks ram modules into their motherboards without regard to whether the motherboard will accept that particular speed or configuration. The kind who tries sharing his printer by plugging it into the usb port on his PVR, the kind who has his entire living room plugged into a bar plugged into a power bar plugged into a power bar. The kind who have their cable modem plugged into a LAN port on their router, the kind who plug their TV into their PVR using an HDMI to DVI adapter and wonder why their is no sound only to then plug in a set of composite cables and watch everything on the composite input "in HD".

Nice examples, but there's no reason that audio won't work over DVI equally well as over HDMI. There are no HDMI "audio pins", audio is sent during the video VBI, and works equally well over DVI-DVI, DVI-HDMI, and HDMI-HDMI, assuming the source device supports HDMI audio.

Comment Re:The system clearly isn't working. (Score 1) 764

Here's the catch. When its a company faced with punitive damages, no one seems to have a problem. When its someone of wealth, no one seems to have a problem. But when its their pet illicit act, suddenly everyone is upset about how broken the system. In fact, you could actually argue that your reaction actually validates the system is "blind" and working properly in this specific detail.

No. People have a problem because the damages awarded are thoroughly disproportionate to the act committed. I'm amazed you can't grasp this, I really am.

Comment Re:Burst.net have NOT handled this well (Score 1) 330

Ugh, replying to my own post:

In the interest of fairness, it's worth noting that I have no involvement in this whatsoever besides being thoroughly unimpressed with burst.net's behavior. As a result, my opinions above are just that, opinions; not grounded in any first hand experience whatsoever.

My rage upon finding out what :actually happened: made me somewhat intemperate in my earlier post, methinks. I still think you'd have to be mad to give them money, though.

Comment Burst.net have NOT handled this well (Score 5, Interesting) 330

So, the Burst.net guys get a request for information about a machine they host which has ~70k users, give or take. Instead of asking the box's sysadmin (who's their CLIENT), they pull the pin, then go on to mutter vague conspiracy-minded commentary such as "getting a refund is the least of his (the site owner/sysadmin) problems" on fora such as WHT (see http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=05a61aabdfcacdb369e1582aff4686a1&t=964013 ) Apparently the fact that he _received_ abuse complaints in the past was grounds to terminate his service; never mind the fact that he had SEVENTY THOUSAND USERS and acted on DMCA notifications and other abuse requests in a timely fashion, which is better than can be said about a lot of sites.

Had burst.net forwarded the request to the site owner (or even simply given the feds his name, and explained how he fit in) instead of disconnecting the machine, making borderline slanderous statements (such as 'he'll never get his data back' and 'a refund is the least of his worries right now',) they would have come out of this looking reasonably good. As it stands, you'd have to be completely brain-dead retarded to even think about giving them money.

Statistics means never having to say you're certain.

Working...