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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Title (Score 1) 184

And I have made a basic error of assuming that 1.0 = 100% (gamma where relativity has no effect) means 1.06-1.0 = 6% (effect of reduction is 6%.)

To understand the mistake, explain what happens when Gamma is 2.0... I'll give you a hint, it doesn't mean that you are now 100% shorter than you were.

Comment: Re:Title (Score 2) 184

If you were moving at 1/3 the speed of light, you are approximately 6% shorter than you were in a rest frame. (To an outside observer? I am never sure if I have this stuff right because it's totally impossible for me to demonstrate with an experiment. For a thought experiment, inside of your frame of reference you wouldn't be able to tell because your measuring devices would experience the same transformation.)

If you were at 2/3 the speed of light, you would be about 34.1% shorter. This is length contraction. As you approach the speed of light, it is harder and harder to accelerate (more energy input is required). If you were at 99.99% the speed of light, you would be 1/70th your current length. This is the same factor that determines how much harder it is to accelerate. It's called gamma. At normal (non-relativistic speeds) your gamma is 1.0. At 1/3 the speed of light, your gamma is about 1.06066 (so the effect of gamma is 0.06066, or roughly 6%). I am rusty but I think you could consider anything with a gamma measurably greater than 1 to be "close to the speed of light" compared to how fast we are moving on this rock, for example at 1% speed of light your gamma is only 1.00005. Our solar system moves around about 220km/s according to Google, or 0.073% the speed of light. So, gamma of 1.00000 out to at the very least least 5 digits.

Comment: Re:Interesting (Score 1) 120

by Yebyen (#48381047) Attached to: No, You Can't Seize Country TLDs, US Court Rules

I think that loophole is called a "Trust"

I don't fully understand how it's different than just having your money in a bank, but that is supposed to provide you with some insulation against having your property seized due to a judgement against you. I also don't understand how putting your money in an irrevocable trust can be of any value, if the point is that you can no longer access your own money to pay a judgement, what would have been the point of earning it in the first place?

Comment: Re:The End Result . . . (Score 1) 290

by Yebyen (#47889519) Attached to: German Court: Google Must Stop Ignoring Customer E-mails

This does not mean they need to reply to _your particular_ e-mail. It simply means that any legal challenges and/or requests which are appropriate to send via e-mail can be addressed to the support address, and the consequences of ignoring those requests can be legally binding as if they were delivered (since they were.)

What kind of requests those might be, I don't think is addressed by the filing. I think they would also be abiding by the ruling if they closed the address and opened a new one, required 2FA to get ahold of a person, captcha, or any other spam-protection measures you can imagine. It's the auto-responder that says "yeah customer, don't try to e-mail us, we don't read e-mail at all" that is against the law.

Comment: Re:Google needs to clean up search (Score 1) 126

by Yebyen (#47777773) Attached to: Microsoft Dumps 1,500 Apps From Its Windows Store

I just wrote a longer response to your post and Chrome ate it (bah)

Basically I think you are wrong about (2), but having just read up on the reasons for IceWeasel rebranding, it would seem that Mozilla does not agree with me.

Isn't it true that the Advertising Clause in original BSD license was the one and only thing separating it from GPL and making it incompatible? The advertising clause, which does nothing other than assert the rights and protections that are already granted by Trademark law...

Comment: Quick adoption of Upstart (Score 1) 826

by Yebyen (#47750381) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide

I too am suspicious about the quick adoption of the Upstart init system in Ubuntu. (^W^W^W oops this article is about something else?)

Upstart is an Ubuntu-Only-ism, yet lots of people are using Ubuntu, and many times they are even on current/supported releases!

Upstart is not tested / does not work with many emerging technologies, such as Docker. We should all rally together against Upstart!

Seriously, I am not sure which side I should be on. I use Ubuntu with Docker and I've become a fan of baseimage-docker, which leveraged the "runit" system of managing service processes. It's braindead simple and totally transparent. After a couple of weeks using it occasionally, I feel like I can know it inside and out as a system that provides a level of clarity and transparency that I never had with Upstart, and don't get yet with Systemd. I am writing my own init "run" scripts and touching the binaries with my bare hands, and I don't mind.

Then outside of Docker, where Upstart works, I am letting the package maintainers handle this for me, and outside of the occasional "/etc/init.d/foo is a no-op and doesn't tell me so when I try to use it", everything works as I expect and I'm never touching inits at all. It's too cumbersome. Systemd, for the little bit that I've used it seems to me like a marginal improvement over that. There are a lot of keywords and config file directives to master. There is potential that these inits could be ported into a docker container with no additional keystrokes, since systemd itself is able to run in those container/protected environments. Great!

Comment: Re:I don't see it.... (Score 1) 181

by Yebyen (#47696869) Attached to: Xiaomi's Next OS Looks Strikingly Similar To iOS

It's mock-racism. He's trying to play back the overtones (subtext?) from the article. I didn't read the original story, but even I can see this line is supposed to sound unapologetically racist, in a blatant way which maybe the original comparison didn't make so obvious. Haven't you ever heard the meme that Chinese make only cheap copies of American inventions? It's a totally racist idea, unless it's actually true. (Which I'm sure it's not.)

Comment: Re:yeah yeah (Score 1) 368

by Yebyen (#47655321) Attached to: Comcast Drops Spurious Fees When Customer Reveals Recording

The bundle would be for TV, Phone, and Internet. The sentence should probably have the emphasis placed on "You NEVER ANSWER".

The implication being that you pay extra for Comcast telephone number that is instantly sold to telemarketers, and since all of your friends have your cell phone number, only telemarketers and bill collectors are actually ringing to call you on it.

We had this phone in a house I used to live. The rent guy ("land lord") apparently owed money on some credit cards that were in default and collections, and he was able to tell poor people moving in that there was a house phone, they could use it to look for a job so they could afford a cell phone (maybe some job better than their crappy job, hopefully we didn't have anyone moving in with no job and no way to pay rent...)

All of the poor people inevitably had cell phones. Nobody used the house phone. If you were in the living room watching TV though, the (888) number that liked to call every day around dinner time would definitely take up 1/2 of the display area on the screen as the Caller ID was automatically routed through the television!

Wow, that's technology.

Comment: Re:as one of the effected people (Score 1) 268

You don't get H1B permits for the whole company. You are an American company, you have to fill so many jobs with Americans, and then you are considered for H1Bs. I'm pretty sure that's how it works, you can't just fire all of the locals and staff the whole factory with H1B workers from New Delhi and Guangdong. You also have to show that you made an effort to fill those jobs with qualified Americans and none were available^w willing to work for your pittance, and even then you have a bunch of hoops. So, if all the companies want to keep their pigs from gaining too much weight, they might have to collude together to try and do it... which is of course illegal as we're seeing now.

Comment: Re:Waste of power (Score 1) 195

by Yebyen (#47583177) Attached to: Inside BitFury's 20 Megawatt Bitcoin Mine

"based on the real world" so, you mean, in fact completely unreal and made of unicorn dust.

How would you tie energy generation to coins? I'm assuming the point of your proposed solution is that the coins are a reward for generating energy, and producing the coins does not actually consume the power. So, how do you make it provably fair? Install ammeters at each generation site with embedded DRM protections?

Why not just sell the power?

...there can be no public or private virtue unless the foundation of action is the practice of truth. - George Jacob Holyoake