Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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:New boss - same as the old boss (Score 1) 79

AOL and similar services, like CompuServe, were founded while the Internet was still restricted to "non-commercial entities". They were giant, nation-wide bulletin board systems. They worked and were profitable. At the time they connected to the Internet, it was seen as a way to increase profit. But then came "big content". The major ISPs now perceive that forcing the major content providers to directly pay for access will increase their profits even more.

Will this really work? I don't know. But it will have the side effect of squeezing out the little content providers. The little ones will be dependent on the tolerance of the big ones to get their content seen.

Comment: Re:Check their work or check the summary? (Score 1) 481

by UnderCoverPenguin (#49345991) Attached to: No, It's Not Always Quicker To Do Things In Memory

It is not always quicker to do things in memory. Statement proved. QED.

Maybe

The disk-only code, although apparently writing to the disk excessively, is only triggering an actual write when operating system buffers are full.

The "disk-only" code is still writing to memory. If anything is proven, it's that the OS is doing its memory management better than the Java or Python run time environments.

Would be interesting to add another case to compare: Open an unnamed pipe, write to "write end" of the pipe in the loop, then read the final string from the "read end" of the pipe.

Comment: Re:Nitrogen asphyxiation? (Score 1) 1080

by UnderCoverPenguin (#49270509) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century

Xenon would be better. Above an inspired concentration of about 70%, it's a general anesthetic. Sleep first, perfect pain relief, then hypoxia, then death.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is also a general anesthetic. Is easy to manufacture. Xenon is a rare element.

As for plain nitrogen, I know, personally 2 people who almost died from hypoxia while using a rebreather while scuba diving. They were not checking their oxygen supply often enough and, in both cases, the low supply warning did not function. They simply lost consciousness. Fortunately, their dive partners noticed and were able to connect spare oxygen bottles in time.

Comment: Re:HOWTO (Score 1) 1080

by UnderCoverPenguin (#49270275) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century

If you're going to execute people and don't want the mess of a head shot, I'd say put em in a gas chamber-like room, and flood it with enough CO2 to displace all the oxygen

CO2 plus water forms an acid. That is way holding your breath becomes painful after some length of time.

A painless option would be to use a continuous nitrogen purge. Then the condemned runs out of oxygen without a build up of CO2.This is something that anyone who nearly died while using a rebreather device can confirm. If you don't check your oxygen supply often enough and the low supply warning fails, you don't feel the pain associated with CO2 because the rebreather is "scrubbing" the CO2 out of the air you exhale. And because the system is recycling the nitrogen, you also don't get the implicit warning from having to "suck air" when your air tank pressure gets low.

Comment: Re:Yes. What do you lose? But talk to lawyer first (Score 1) 734

This is why Canadians working in the U.S. for part of the year have to be able to document the number of days they stayed there. If they're in the U.S. for more than 183 days, they're considered a U.S. resident and don't owe Canadian taxes.

My girlfriend is a Canadian citizen and pays Canadian (and US) income taxes despite being a full time US resident for greater than 20 years. Also, our daughter, having been born to a Canadian citizen and having not renounced Canadian citizenship also pays income taxes to both Canada and the US.

Comment: Re:Congratulations (Score 1) 599

by UnderCoverPenguin (#49133225) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

These regulations were necessary becasue the ISPs embarked on a new plan to squeeze content providers. They wanted to be paid both by the subscriber and by the content providers.

Actually, most of the content providers are subscribers. They pay their ISPs for access to the internet. Consumers of the content may be subscribers of different ISPs than the content they access. So content providers were providing content to subscribers on different ISPs. Initially, the ISPs saw this as increasing the potential market for their own subscribers, ISPs facilitated it by making "peering" arrangements with each other. These peering arrangements, at first, worked on the assumption that traffic between each pair was roughly equal in both directions. Then "super star" services came along, upsetting the balance of traffic. So, the providers on the receiving side of the "data deluge" decided they wanted to be paid for the imbalance.

Another issue is that the major ISPs, like Camcast and Time Warner, now own some of the major content providers. Naturally, each ISP wants to prioritize the content of the content providers it owns.

Comment: Re:Congratulations (Score 1) 599

by UnderCoverPenguin (#49133143) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

Net Neutrality certainly wasn't how the Internet was run from day 1: plenty of providers restricted what you could do on their networks, foremost DARPA itself.

The restrictions applied by DARPA applied to all internet users. Services like AOL and Compuserve, when they first offered connections to the internet, offered the internet service they were allowed to offer. They already had services beyond what was allowed on the internet. As the restrictions on internet usage were incrementally relaxed, it became possible for customers of one ISP to offer services to customers of other ISPs. As this increased the potential market for customers of the ISPs, ISPs facilitated it by making "peering" arrangements with each other. These peering arrangements, at first, worked on the assumption that traffic between each pair was roughly equal in both directions. Then "super star" services came along, upsetting the balance of traffic. So, the providers on the receiving side of the "data deluge" decided they wanted to be paid for the imbalance.

Comment: Re:The best trick (Score 2) 260

by UnderCoverPenguin (#49107993) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Parental Content Control For Free OSs?

Second best solution is to join the Amish. At least you will get a nice quilt!

When I was a teen, I met and befriended some amish teens at a farmers' market near where I lived. Their parents allowed them to talk with us "English kids". They had other non-amish friends, too. Their village had phones - strictly for business and emergency use, but they were familiar with phones. Also calculators - which they were only allowed to use when helping at the farmers' market. I'm sure, these days, Amish kids are familiar with the internet despite whatever restrictions they live under.

(BTW, the Amish kids were just as horney as us. And they asked us to get them porn.)

Comment: Re:LG TV (Score 1) 130

by UnderCoverPenguin (#49091527) Attached to: Gadgets That Spy On Us: Way More Than TVs

So I disconnected it from the internet, and so it shall remain.

Are you sure it's really disconnected? If it has WiFi, it could auto-connect to any available, "open" access point.

I suppose one possibility would be to setup a "dummy" access point and configure the TV to connect to it. But, it's possible the TV, unable to "phone home", could auto-reconnect to any available, "open" access point.

Comment: Re:Technology can NOT eliminate work. (Score 1) 389

by UnderCoverPenguin (#49076643) Attached to: What To Do After Robots Take Your Job

We could have everyone working two days a week. Yes that would introduce extra overheads, but we have the excess manpower to manage them, so why not?

There are already companies that hire 3 or 4 people for every job, each person working between 10 and 15 hours per week. The companies like this because they don't have to provide any benefits to these workers. The workers don't like this because they still need another job or 2. This can be complicated by the use of dynamic scheduling, meaning workers are effectively on-call 12 or more hours per day, every day. The penalty for not accepting an offered "shift" is lowering the probability of being scheduled. So the worker looses not only the offered hours at that time, but also future hours. And since it is probabilistic, the only time blocks a worker will have clear for another job are what otherwise would be sleep time.

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Working...