Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Thoughts on TFA (Score 1) 378

Given a reasonable power source other than a star, they'd be better off living in interstellar space where no one is likely bother them.

Actually, a nebula would be the best place for such a "species" to congregate. There is plenty of raw material there and it does not take much work to gather it; unlike, say, an asteroid field or something where there are very large and hard chunks of discrete matter.

Also, asteroids only form in gravity wells. A robotic species would surely prefer to "live" at the tops of, or outside of, gravity wells and swoop down into them only for things that are valuable.

Comment: Re:more simplifications and fewer cats, please (Score 1) 192

by strikethree (#48639995) Attached to: Quantum Physics Just Got Less Complicated

But instead what you get is an INTERFERENCE pattern, which can ONLY happen if the particles are going through BOTH HOLES.

To me, this is one of the most famous physics experiments of all time... but I have never been able to find out how far apart those holes are and at what distance the holes are apart that the single photon stops traveling through both.

It seems to me if the slits (holes?) have to be closer than the uncertainty of the position of the photon then we are dealing with something other than what we call "physical reality". Call it a sort of building block for "physical reality".

Hm?

Comment: Re:Under US Jurisdiction? (Score 1) 281

Yes, they have. The Constitution has been amended dozens of times since it was written

We were specifically discussing:

The problem is that most Americans are perfectly happy with the police acting this way.

I was saying that it was against the letter and the spirit of the laws that all other laws in America are founded upon. Of course, none of the "dozens" (27 total) of amendments actually reverse or otherwise negate the 4th so your refutation of

but THEY HAVE NOT BEEN USED

falls amazingly flat.

and countless Supreme Court cases have further changed laws.

Changed is a charged word in this context. In all actuality, all that the judicial branch can do is strike down or remove. They can not add. At most, they can "clarify", but that does not create new law. That is reserved for Congress, aka the legislative branch.

Completely incorrect. If case law and legislation (at all levels of government) have resulted in a police state, then a police state is indeed compatible with American law, by very definition.

No. No it is not compatible. The thing about the laws in America is that some laws are "higher" or "stronger" or more relevant than other laws. The highest, strongest laws are the ones that were written as a basis for the country (America in this case) to even exist. Congress can pass whatever laws it wants and they become "real" laws upon passing. The Supreme Court is there to decide if any of these lesser laws are compatible with the greater laws. If not, if Congress really wants that law to be real, then it has to pass a law that explicitly nullifies the greater law.

In this instance, we are talking about the 4th Amendment. No law, no Executive Order, no regulation, etc can violate the 4th Amendment. If indeed America wants to pass a law that is incompatible with the 4th, it has to actually nullify the 4th with another constitutional Amendment.

And if you have some kind of problem with a court effectively legislating and deciding law, then you have a problem with English Common Law, which this country was explicitly founded upon.

Completely incorrect. If case law and legislation (at all levels of government) have resulted in a police state, then a police state is indeed compatible with American law, by very definition.

It's sad how poorly educated in basic Civics most Americans are these days.

Indeed. It is very sad how poorly educated in basic Civics most Americans are these days. Even Congress and the President seems to not have a good understanding despite pledging to uphold such laws. Your understanding is also deeply deficient. Perhaps you should educate yourself.

Comment: Re:Under US Jurisdiction? (Score 1) 281

by strikethree (#48627785) Attached to: Eric Schmidt: To Avoid NSA Spying, Keep Your Data In Google's Services

Okay my friend, you just picked a nasty fight; however, I first have to say this:

You are correct, they are still technically American citizens.

Now, on to the fight: America is explicitly NOT a democracy. Your attempt to frame my desires to the other extreme, an authoritarian government, is a common Fox news tactic. You should be ashamed.

America is a democratic Republic. It was formed that way EXPLICITLY to prevent mob rule. The Constitution and Bill of rights spell out what America is supposed to be. If there is a true need for the Republic to change the rules it is built upon, then there are mechanisms in place to do that... but THEY HAVE NOT BEEN USED.

Why? We can argue about that forever. Regardless, the basic rules from which all other rules rest upon, have not been changed. That means a police state is incompatible with American law; both in the letter and spirit of the law.

Comment: Re:Meaningless (Score 1) 173

by strikethree (#48624365) Attached to: Backblaze's 6 TB Hard Drive Face-Off

First, let me say thank you for publishing this information.

Second, the reason nobody else shares information is: Information is power. Power shared is power lost.

I forget who did that quote originally. Some claim it is from the Art of War.

Regardless, any power "lost" is surely gained back in spades with good will. You guys rock. :)

Comment: Re:The major downside to this.. (Score 1) 391

by strikethree (#48624257) Attached to: Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

You do not understand the danger of having everything you look at, read, say, and/or comment on being catalogued (sp? really?) and analyzed.

There have been numerous books written that explore this idea which implies that I can not do it justice in the limited space available here.

I think you should take a step back and look at what you are really giving up by not encrypting everything. Yes, if "they" really want you, such lame encryption tactics and strategies will not help. It will help a LOT against untargeted (wtf? no such word? Firefox is REALLY getting on my nerves.) dragnets.

Comment: Re:So perhaps /. will finally fix its shit (Score 1) 391

by strikethree (#48624239) Attached to: Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

Really Why? what content on Slashdot justify's the need for encrypted content? I really don't get this huge push for SSL everywhere. give me SSL when I need it, I don't want SSL for accessing a forum or a news site or just generally browsing the web.

I already moderated in this discussion but I thought this was important enough to reply to.

SSL everywhere defeats fishing expeditions. Your argument is roughly equivalent to, "I did not do anything wrong; therefore, I have nothing to hide".

People express opinions here. Sometimes, ideas are explored. It is very easy to imagine a scenario where you have somehow come to the attention of some government functionary and they decide to examine your communications history.

Your perfectly innocent comments on Slashdot could come back to haunt you. Isn't it better to not let it all get collected in the first place?

Comment: Re:Under US Jurisdiction? (Score 1) 281

by strikethree (#48623293) Attached to: Eric Schmidt: To Avoid NSA Spying, Keep Your Data In Google's Services

The problem is that most Americans are perfectly happy with the police acting this way.

Then by definition, they are not Americans. They should go form their own fucking gestapo somewhere else. It is not welcome in America. Such things are blatantly against the spirit and letter of the laws that America was founded upon.

Comment: Re:Offline archive? (Score 1) 156

by OrangeTide (#48622325) Attached to: Dr. Dobb's 38-Year Run Comes To an End

Well, I follow pcc development pretty closely and still use it for a few small projects.

To be sure there are some pretty significant advancements in compiler design that are important for someone who is working on a compiler in a professional or research capacity. But for me it was more of an exercise in understanding enough to hack a little bit on pcc, lcc and now llvm. I really only got as far as graph coloring for register allocators, and type inference for non-C ML-like language (a flawed approximation of HM type inference).

Some people are moving back to hand written compilers, at least hand written recursive descent parsers in place of compiler generators like yacc/bison. My own experiments formalized the grammar with PEG to generate and confirm test cases, then hand written recursive descent from the PEG (very easy to do).

I don't think I hand optimize C to suit some ancient assumptions of what a compiler can do. A modern C compiler can do a lot of amazing substitutions to turn a well organized set of small functions into a very fast monolithic block of machine code.

These days, pretty much the best thing when writing C is to avoid doing things that are undefined so the compiler can do optimization instead of falling back to some legacy behavior hacked into it.

Riches: A gift from Heaven signifying, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." -- John D. Rockefeller, (slander by Ambrose Bierce)

Working...