Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:Simple Solution (Score 1) 29

by MightyMartian (#49193899) Attached to: Apple, Google, Bringing Low-Pay Support Employees In-House

I'm going to to be terribly pedantic here, but GST, like all VATs, does not work like that. It is not an expense (as in it does not effect profit and loss). Like all VATs, GST collected on sales is subtracted from GST spent on purchases, and if the remainder is positive, then you pay that to the government, and if it is negative the government sends you the difference. The point is to make a fairer sales tax, where goods and services are not taxed at multiple points. All these financial operations happen on the balance sheet as changes to assets and liabilities, and have nothing to do with expenses at all.

Comment: Oh Come On, it's a Press Release (Score 2, Insightful) 41

OK, no real technical data and some absurd claims here.

First all-digital transceiver? No. There have been others. Especially if you allow them to have a DAC and an ADC and no other components in the analog domain, but even without that, there are lots of IoT-class radios with direct-to-digital detectors and digital outputs directly to the antenna. You might have one in your car remote (mine is two-way).

And they have to use patented algorithms? Everybody else can get along with well-known technology old enough that any applicable patents are long expired.

It would be nicer if there was some information about what they are actually doing. If they really have patented it, there's no reason to hold back.

Comment: Re:Yes. What do you lose? But talk to lawyer first (Score 2) 351

by hey! (#49193289) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Should I Let My Kids Become American Citizens?

Personally, I don't see that any of these things as compelling practical advantages, given that the kids already have dual Swedish and Belgian (and therefore EU) citizenship. If they were Moldovan and South Sudanese, that'd be a different story. Or if they were citizens of a country from which getting a visa to enter the US might be difficult in the future.

But most importantly I think this is one of those decisions that you just don't make primarily on a cost-benefit basis. It's not like deciding to join Costco or subscribe to Hulu. Citizenship entails responsibilities. If you want your kids to shoulder those responsibilities and feel allegiance to the US then it makes sense to get them that citizenship come hell or high water. But given that they already have two perfectly good citizenships from two advanced western democracies with generally positive international relations worldwide, I don't see much practical advantage in adding a third.

Still, I wouldn't presume to give advice, other than this. The poster needs to examine, very carefully, that feeling he has that maybe his kids should be Americans. The way he expresses it, "sentimental reasons", makes those feelings seem pretty trivial, in which case it hardly matters if they don't become Americans. After all, most other Belgians seem to get along perfectly well without being Americans too. But if this is at all something he suspects he might seriously regret not doing, or if it nags him in ways he can't quite put his finger on, he needs to get to the bottom of that in a way random people on the Internet can't help him with.

Comment: Re:Interpreting these conditions (Score 1) 147

by Kjella (#49192237) Attached to: Software Freedom Conservancy Funds GPL Suit Against VMWare

You obviously do no understand the GPL. What you say here has specifically been addressed by the Affero GPL

That's not what I'm talking about, because it lacks the "distribution" part. What I'm talking about is what level of detachment is necessary to say that these bits of software depend on each other, but they're not derivative of each other. And thus the GPL wouldn't apply, even if you distribute them together.

Comment: Re:I'm dying of curiousity (Score 1) 147

by phantomfive (#49192159) Attached to: Software Freedom Conservancy Funds GPL Suit Against VMWare

All interfaces 'literally use the code' If calling an interface makes my code a derived work that is very, very bad in a larger sense.

Do you understand that the case of the linux kernel is different than the oracle vs google case? Google literally rewrote all the code from scratch, merely maintaining the APIs. In the case of the Linux kernel, drivers use the actual code written by Linus et al, it's not just using the APIs.

Comment: Re:Apple (Score 1) 46

My Hackintosh would disagree. NUCs make great iMacs... just velcro them to the back of a display of your choice. Combined with a nice VISA mount, provides a very clean setup with acceptable performance, for 1/4 the cost of 'real' Apple hardware.

Haven't you heard that NFC is now the hip, cool thing? That is so last year.

Comment: Re:I'm dying of curiousity (Score 1) 147

by phantomfive (#49191971) Attached to: Software Freedom Conservancy Funds GPL Suit Against VMWare

Old thread. Linus apparently thought header files/interfaces could be copyrighted. He's been shown to be wrong in the USA.

A) If you're talking about Oracle VS Google, The appeals court overruled that

B) It's not just 'using the header files', it's literally using the kernel code, so even if interfaces couldn't be copyrighted, that wouldn't apply here.

Comment: Your friendly neighborhood word pedant here (Score 0) 119

by hey! (#49191827) Attached to: Developers Race To Develop VR Headsets That Won't Make Users Nauseous

... with some food for thought.

The ending '-eous' or '-ious' is added to a noun to produce an adjective that means producing whatever that noun is. Something that is 'advantageous' produces advantage for example. Something which is ignominious produce ignominy (shame, embarrassment). Something that is piteous arouses pity in the onlooker.

I think you see where I'm going with this. The word the headline writer should have used is 'nauseated', although making users nauseous in the pedantic sense would certainly be a concern for the developers of any product.

"I'm not afraid of dying, I just don't want to be there when it happens." -- Woody Allen

Working...