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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:What baffles me is.... (Score 2) 86 86

If this scum has a history of making false claims then why are they still allowed to make claims at all? Better yet, why haven't they been banned from Youtube altogether?

Alice posts a video using music that Bob owns the copyright to. Carol posts a video that uses music Bob falsely claims to also hold the copyright for. Unfortunately Bob's false claim against Carol doesn't change the fact that he actually does have a legitimate legal claim against Alice's video. So kicking him off the system means he's going to issue a takedown against Alice. The whole point of bringing him into the system was to give him an incentive to leave Alice alone.

The problem here isn't Bob and Alice -- that part of the scenario is working fine. The problem is Bob and Carol. There's no incentive for Bob not to make false claims against Carol. That's the bit that has to be fixed.

Comment: Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score 4, Insightful) 246 246

Well, it may interest you to know that courts judging "emotional distress" is not some new Internet fad. In the year 1348 an innkeeper brought suit against a man who had been banging on his tavern door demanding wine. When the innkeeper stuck his head out the doorway to tell the man to stop, the man buried the hatchet he was carrying into the door by the innkeeper's head. The defendant argued that since there was no physical harm inflicted no assault had taken place, but the judged ruled against him [ de S et Ux. v. W de S (1348)]. Ever since then non-physical, non-financial harm has been considered both an essential element of a number of of crimes, a potential aggravating factor in others, and an element weighed in establishing civil damages.

This does *not*, however, mean that hurt feelings in themselves constitute a crime. It's a difficult and sometimes ambiguous area of the law, but the law doesn't have the luxury of addressing easy and clear-cut cases only.

As to why a new law is need now, when the infliction of emotional distress has been something the law has been working on for 667 years, I'd say that the power of technology to uncouple interactions from space and time has to be addressed. Hundreds of years ago if someone was obnoxious to you at your favorite coffeehouse, you could go at a different time or choose a different coffeehouse. Now someone intent on spoiling your interactions with other people doesn't have to coordinate physical location and schedule with you to be a persistent, practically inescapable nuisance.

Does this mean every interaction that hurts your feelings on the Internet is a crime? No, no more than everything that happens in your physical presence you take offense at is a crime.

Comment: Re:Not just a GUI toolkit (Score 1) 79 79

Thanks. That's useful feedback. Obviously, this topic is complicated with several factors to muddy the waters.

> 90% of your time is usually spent in 5% of your code, so it's really the ability to optimize easily when you need to without resorting to convoluted tricks and hooks into other languages.

Interestingly, the Python/glue-language philosophy is just the opposite, for exactly the same reasons. Since it is just the 5% of the code that needs optimization, it says: why not write that in C/C++ and the rest in something easier?

These days, you can get GPU power outside C++. For instance, Theano brings GPU math to Python. I don't have experience with comparing the performance differences between say PyCUDA/jcuda vs straight C/C++ CUDA. The net difference may not be 100x, but C/C++ programmers will certainly tend to do deeper optimizations.

Comment: Re:Not just a GUI toolkit (Score 1) 79 79

You can bundle JRE with your jar/exe, if you don't want the user to separately download a runtime. Many Eclipse Rich Client Apps do this. I have done it myself. As someone who used Delphi/C++ Builder and is very used to static linking to a 1-2 MB distributables with no further dependencies, I am not that happy with Qt dll sizes for client apps. Its certainly better than Java, but is quite bloated for native code. All other native solutions are much more compact (Qt of course wins by feature set). Static linking with Qt is possible, but not recommended.

I was looking for info on Qt server apps. On the server, runtimes aren't a concern. Startup times are also not important for HPC apps with long execution times. What is important is how things go after the startup. JVM does need to set more memory aside for the GC. Micro benchmarks typically put C++ at 1.5-2.0x faster than Java. I wondered how real world performance differs.

Comment: Re:Not just a GUI toolkit (Score 1) 79 79

I understand all that. I used Qt myself, but just for simple GUIs. I was just wondering what his real world numbers were. I was not challenging him for his choice. I know the micro-benchmarks between native and VM code. I was curious of how things fared in his larger apps. I normally do JVM for long-running server code, but C++11 and onwards is increasingly attractive, although JVM is still a bit simpler to work with, on the whole. I am exclusively interested in his (or anyone else's) real world experiences on the performance differences between JVM HPC code (server VM config) and C++ server code that uses Qt as the main library.

Comment: Re:Environmentalists will cause the next nuclear a (Score 4, Interesting) 127 127

Every time nuclear power comes up someone blames environmentalists for the industry's problems -- in this case before the problems have manifested. It's an article of faith.

So far as I can see there's only ever been one plant in the US that's ever been cancelled for environmental concerns is the proposed plant at Bodega Harbor, which as you can see on the map would have been right on top of the San Andreas fault. In every other case projects have been shut down after serious miscalculations in the industry's economic forecasting (e.g. lower energy prices in the 80s than anticipated in the 70s), often exacerbated by poor project management performance. In those cases environmentalists were just a convenient scapegoat for management screw-ups.

You can see that because after the very largest anti-nuclear protests in history -- against Seabrook in NH and Diablo Canyon -- the plants were built and put into operation anyway. If a company had a plant under construction that it could make money operating, that plant would get built, even if thirty thousand people turned out to protest.

Comment: Re:Iran is not trying to save money (Score 1) 379 379

Well, you have to factor in the Iranian cultural mania for disagreeing with each other. The Shah couldn't keep them under his thumb, neither can the mullahs, who have their hands full disagreeing with each other.

From a tyrant's perspective Iran is ungovernable, which doesn't mean elements in the government don't give tyranny a go on a regular basis. It's an ideal setup for producing martyrs. The futility of cracking down means you have a little space to rake some muck before official anger overcomes reason.

Comment: Re:Big giant scam ... (Score 1) 813 813

I distinctly remember it being promised that the F-35 would beat anything but an F-22 in air-to-air combat, at a fraction of the price. It was not part of the original concept for the system but it was definitely sold politically as being capable of acting as a poor man's F22.

I wonder about the helmet mounted display, whether that's something you'd consider absolutely necessary in an aircraft whose job is to hit surface targets in contested airspace.

Comment: Re:Big giant scam ... (Score 1) 813 813

As a supposed air-superiority platform, this is an utter failure.

To be fair, that was not the original justification for the thing. That was mission creep.

I think the original impetus was to have something stealthy that could do ground strikes in enemy territory. And it makes sense to do a naval version of the same thing. If they'd just focused on that they'd have been done a long time ago with a solid design, which of course in engineering nearly always turns out to be more versatile than you planned for. Adding STOVL and the whizbang helmet (cool as that may be) as necessary elements of the system turned this into an "everything for everyone" project, which almost always turns out less versatile than you hoped.

Comment: Re:Dogfights?! What year is it?! (Score 1) 813 813

Sure you can identify scenarios where the A-10 is useless. But in the last twenty years it's been extremely useful in a number scenarios we've actually faced.

The idea that a system ought to play every role in every conceivable situation is why the F35 performs none of them very well. In hindsight the idea of accommodating the Marines' need for a STOVL aircraft in the same basic design probably dictated too many compromises in the plane's other roles.

Comment: Re:Ascent, not ascension (Score 1) 316 316

You are confusing "ascension" with "right ascension". Just plain "ascension" (not capitalized) is pretty much a synonym for "ascent".

A few dictionaries define "ascension" as an astronomical term referring to the rising of the star above the horizon -- in other words the increasing of altitude in the alt/azimuth coordinate system -- but this definition doesn't appear in lists of astronomical terms so either this usage is uncommon or obsolete.

"Floggings will continue until morale improves." -- anonymous flyer being distributed at Exxon USA

Working...