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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:A gem from the discussion (Score 2) 310

by Wycliffe (#49593847) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

I think it's even worse than that. Are there ANY caching services, edgecast, or CDNs that support encryption?
https is great when you need it but for static content like images it makes caching next to impossible as well
as requires several times more servers to serve the same amount of traffic as an http server can serve over
double the number of pages per second as a https server and that's without looking at all the traffic that is
skipped with caching and CDNs.

Comment: Re:Makerspace.... (Score 1) 167

I may just be a sad, old hippie, but I think relying on heavily computerized equipment, where you can download a blueprint, push a button and out comes a finished product, that doesn't mean you're a 'maker' in my book. Yes, I know I exaggerate, but still. Or is 'maker' what you call yourself when you don't want to learn how to actually do things, you just want the finished result?

I think most "makers" that I've met are interested in how things work. That involves disassembling existing products and also
creating something new that doesn't exist and you can't buy. In many cases, yes, all they want is the finished result with that
finished result being a robot or other item that doesn't exist. The more tools that make it easier the better. If you can download
a blueprint and push a button for certain portions of the project, then that is great. It give you more time to work on the other
pieces of the project that aren't pushbutton.

Comment: Re:Makerspace.... (Score 1) 167

I am considering trying to design a place with areas for this, as well as areas to cook, and areas to sew, maybe an area for chemistry.

The point of a makerspace or workshop is to give access to expensive tools that would be cost prohibitive for someone to own themself.
Things like 3d printers, lathes, etc... and it's general non-consumables. Most people have access to the stuff needed to cook, sew and
perform chemistry experiments. Also most of that stuff is consumables which you would need to provide yourself anyways. An expensive
sewing machine might be something for a sewing space but if I had to guess those probably already exist. As far as chemistry and cooking,
I don't see a market for it.

Comment: Re:What about a bus? (Score 2) 278

by Wycliffe (#49587329) Attached to: New Study Suggests Flying Is Greener Than Driving

Actually, buses are terrible. They only run fully occupied during peak times, and transit companies don't pull the big buses and replace them with minivans during off-peak hours. So most bus miles are run with very light loads. On average, buses are far worse than cars for energy efficiency because of the low average load factor.

You're talking about city buses. You can't compare city buses with city to city buses. Chartered city to city buses run at or near 100% at
all times just like alot of airlines. Chartered airlines are the same way. That's the reason certain getaway packages are so cheap. They sell
every seat and know that every seat is sold and only leave when it's full unlike city buses and some airlines where they are running 12
rounds a day whether someone is riding or not.

Comment: Re:Yeah.... (Score 1) 192

by Wycliffe (#49584821) Attached to: Massachusetts Governor Introduces Bill To Regulate Uber, Lyft

Uber and Lyft operate on the principle that the person requesting the ride will pay enough to cover the matching fee, the full expenses of the person driving, and profit. That's not ridesharing in any sense, it's a car for hire.

Maybe a solution to the "ride share" vs "commercial service" would be to pass
a law for what the maximum price you can charge for a ride share. The IRS
per mile number (57.5 cents per mile) might be a good number to use or maybe
even something less like 75% of that but it should definitely be easy to argue
that if you're charging more than the 57.5 cents per mile then you are no longer
in the ride share business but are operating for a profit because "shared expenses"
should in theory only be 50% of that number (28.75 cents per mile).
Lyft is at $1.90 and Uber varies but is also well above the full 57.5 cents.

Comment: Re:Why is this even a question? (Score 1) 367

by Wycliffe (#49579429) Attached to: Who Owns Pre-Embryos?

So legally, they should both have "the man's rights", which is none at all.
They contributed to a sperm-bank, effectively.
Anything beyond here is akin to adoption.

Proof: Biologically, another woman could implant.

I would agree to this. Just like presumably you could withdraw consent for your sperm in
a sperm bank* to be used before it is actually used, either party should be able to withdraw
their consent until it is actually placed into service. In the sperm bank case, you might have
signed a waiver giving up your right to retract or it could be assumed like when you donate blood
but in this case they maintained ownership but as soon as either party revokes consent then
the embryos should be flushed.

Comment: Re:Yeah.... (Score 1) 192

by Wycliffe (#49576589) Attached to: Massachusetts Governor Introduces Bill To Regulate Uber, Lyft

Perhaps that's no loss. There's no rule that every business model under the sun -has- to exist. None of the requirements described in the summary seem out of line to me.

I see no problem with uber having a little star next to the people that have a million dollar liability coverage but
also I don't see why a person can't opt to go with someone cheaper that only has 10k liability coverage.

If people actually wanted 1M liability coverage then uber could flag those accounts and push them to the top
but most people don't care and would rather have cheaper fare.

Comment: Re:Yeah.... (Score 1) 192

by Wycliffe (#49576559) Attached to: Massachusetts Governor Introduces Bill To Regulate Uber, Lyft

Uber and Lyft have completely perverted the phrase, using it to refer to taxi rides arranged over the internet, at random prices, while ignoring any taxi regulations.

I'm not so sure it was Uber and Lyft. I think originally Uber and Lyft probably intended for it to be ride-share where people commuting to the
same location shared a car but the prices were high enough that people realized that they could make a living at it.
If Uber and Lyft cut the fares charged/paid by 75% then it would probably go back to that as then the only time it would be profitable to
take on a passenger would be if you were already going that direction.

Comment: Re:Why is this even a question? (Score 1) 367

by Wycliffe (#49576271) Attached to: Who Owns Pre-Embryos?

This is easy. Based on current legal standards, to force the woman to become a mother against her will is rape. To force the man to become a father is merely a call for more stringent child support enforcement.

Not to mention the woman has the absolute right to destroy the embryos if she so chooses.

Summary judgement for the woman unless you want to upend hundreds of years of law.

Current legal standards are based on the embryo being attached to the woman's body and you have to
violate her person to remove it so the scale is tilted to her favor.

In this case the embryo is not part of the woman's body or the man's body so they have equal right to it.

Comment: Re:Close to owning (Score 1) 367

by Wycliffe (#49576239) Attached to: Who Owns Pre-Embryos?

because he has no use for it without her and she has use for it without him.

But all in all, because women own their bodies exclusively.

Yes, women own their bodies and men own their bodies.
But this embryo is not part of the woman's body so that argument doesn't hold.
This embryo is one egg from the woman and one sperm from the man.
It is not any more a part of the woman's body than it is part of the man's body.

Comment: Re:Close to owning (Score 1) 367

by Wycliffe (#49576127) Attached to: Who Owns Pre-Embryos?

You're right, on second thought.

Basically, the fertilised egg ought to be seen as being part of the woman's body if it's inside the womb or outside. So it's her choice to do whatever she wants with it. The woman owns it.

Why exactly? Why does the woman have more right to it than the man? Why couldn't the man opt to raise it with a surrogate?
It's exactly 50/50 in my book. I would prefer a technical solution like refertilizing with a different sperm donor but I don't see how
it's any more the woman's than the man's.

Comment: Re:Bullets are OK, but... (Score 1) 245

by Wycliffe (#49573345) Attached to: Breakthough Makes Transparent Aluminum Affordable

Before we ask for this for windshields, we need to see how well it handles regular abrasive friction and small particulates. If it scratches easily then it may require a coating of glass on either side for its hardness
I doubt that this will be, by itself, a windshield, and if a windshield made out of this stuff still needs a glass layer, then you're right back to where you were before as far as chipping with debris over a certain size is concerned.

The article says it is harder than glass but even if it was unsuitable for the outside layer, there is no reason it would need an inside layer of glass.
The outside of a car window needs to withstand the elements but the inside layer doesn't need to be near as weather or abrasion resistance.
The inside layer of a car could be fairly fragile and it could still do the job quite well assuming it had other desirable properties as the inside
of the front windshield rarely even gets touched.

Comment: Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score 1) 329

by Wycliffe (#49569561) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles

So you bought stock in the company, then went to the shareholder meeting? Not buying isn't "voting". At best it's abstaining. And when 90% of the country abstains, the winner only needs 5% of the vote, so abstaining makes the problem worse, not better.

That might be how voting works but that's not how economics works. How economics work is when people stop buying your product you get less money.
If they can only get 5% of the population then they will likely go out of business and even if they don't, they are going to do customer surveys to try to
figure out how to get more people to subscribe and start to realize that their business model is driving away 90% of their customers. If they don't realize
this then there is a good chance that some other company will and will steal their market share. Yes, you definitely can vote with your money by abstaining.

This is now. Later is later.