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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Power efficiency is good in some places, not al (Score 1) 337

John Cook (put his blog in your RSS feed if you don't already have it) made a very good point recently: The speed gains from Moore's Law are dwarfed by the speed gains from algorithmic improvements. And unlike Moore's Law, we're not yet seeing a limit approaching for better ways to solve stuff. The post in question:

Comment Re:Power efficiency is good in some places, not al (Score 1) 337

A lot of tasks intrinsically don't scale, or scale only up to some limit. Some people are running into this already in the HPC world, were we have big parallel machines that they can't take full advantage of. Their simulations simply don't scale above a certain number of cores.

This problem is becoming steadily worse, since people want to make models with more detail (that tends to not parallelize well), and simulate much longer timeframes than before. If you're simulating protein interactions over one millisecond, then it might not matter if it takes an hour or two. But if you want to use that to understand LTP in neurons and simulate a second or two, then it becomes a very major problem if your model can't parallelize further and the per-core speed stays put.

Comment Re:last chance to buy quality Sharp products (Score 3, Interesting) 48

Geeks are just as good the world over, whether Japan, Taiwan, EU, US or China. Product quality has nothing to do with the quality of the designers and builders and everything to do with the budget and time constraints they have to do their stuff. And that is all about where their company wants to position itself in the price/quality/reputation landscape.

Sharp has a well-deserved reputation for good quality and sometimes off-beat or niche products that delight a few even if they don't become huge sellers. And that's of course part reason why they've been in trouble for some years now. Foxconn doesn't have a reputation for premium products or for doing their own thing.

I share the worry that Sharp as we know it will disappear, and just become another nameplate pasted on bland, forgettable me-too stuff.

Comment Re:Because Reasons (Score 1) 419

Indeed, I've been looking at uMatrix (in combination with NoScript), and there's a lot to recommend it. As far as cookie management goes, however, it's not as fine-grained as what Firefox had. You can only enable/disable a site's ability to set cookies. You can't inspect/approve every single cookie request itself. Sometimes you can get a site to work by accepting certain cookies and denying all others. FF's facility let you do that.

Comment Re:Because Reasons (Score 1) 419

You're the third person in this sub-thread alone to recommend Self-Destructing Cookies.

While I like the idea of its behavioral detection of tracking cookies, and its stats panel is informative, my ultimate problem is that it allows the cookies to be set in the first place. 99.9% of the cookies shoved at my browser are entirely, provably unnecessary -- the page displays the same regardless. As such, my philosophy is that they should never be accepted in the first place, even temporarily.

The cookie request is also a waste of bandwidth. If you're going to display the same page either way, why clog the pipe with a cookie that you're manifestly not doing anything meaningful with?

Comment Because Reasons (Score 4, Interesting) 419

It occurred to me after submitting the article that the per-cookie approval feature has been part of Firefox since it was called Netscape, so it's been around for a very long time.

Moreover, the allegation that enabling the feature destabilized the browser is pharmaceutically pure bullshit. I've been using the feature since its inception, and have Firefox windows open and running for days at a time without ill effect.

Contrariwise, I just went to check my cookie store, and found a bunch of new, unapproved, unwelcome, provably unnecessary cookies have appeared in just the week since I moved from v43 to v44. Deleting them after the fact is not a solution. Once set, tracking can take place immediately. The damage has already been done.

The proffered reasons for the change are easily shown to be false, so I do not hold out any hope that Mozilla management will have a change of heart on this matter and reinstate the long-standing feature.

Would anyone care to recommend a cookie management add-on?

Submission + - Firefox 44 Deletes Fine-Grained Cookie Management (

ewhac writes: Among its other desirable features, Firefox included a feature allowing very fine-grained cookie management. When enabled, every time a Web site asked to set a cookie, Firefox would raise a dialog containing information about the cookie requested, which you could then approve or deny. An "exception" list also allowed you to mark selected domains as "Always allow" or "Always deny", so that the dialog would not appear for frequently-visited sites. It was an excellent way to maintain close, custom control over which sites could set cookies, and which specific cookies they could set. It also helped easily identify poorly-coded sites that unnecessarily requested cookies for every single asset, or which would hit the browser with a "cookie storm" — hundreds of concurrent cookie requests.

Mozilla quietly deleted this feature from Firefox 44, with no functional equivalent put in its place. Further, users who had enabled the "Ask before accept" feature have had that preference silently changed to, "Accept normally." The proffered excuse for the removal was that the feature was unmaintained, and that its users were, "probably crashing multiple times a day as a result" (although no evidence was presented to support this assertion). Mozilla's apparent position is that users wishing fine-grained cookie control should be using a third-party add-on instead, and that an "Ask before accept" option was, "not really nice to use on today's Web."

Submission + - All 12 Countries Sign off on the TPP (

Dangerous_Minds writes: News is surfacing that the TPP has officially been signed by all 12 countries. This marks the beginning of the final step towards ratification. Freezenet has a quick rundown of what copyright provisions are contained in the agreement including traffic shaping, site blocking, enforcement of copyright when infringement is "imminent", and a government mandate for ISPs to install backdoors for the purpose of tracking copyright infringement on the Internet.

Comment Re: Legal requirement? (Score 1) 339

As I already commented, it's about "supply and demand" insofar as Musk knows there is more demand than cars he's likely to be able to manufacture, so he can get away with dismissing customers like that. But I don't think that was the reason for the cancellation itself.

I'm not sure what the remainder or your paragraph has to do with "supply and demand" though, unless you're saying that you can dictate to your customers because there's more demand from them than you produce? I'm not in your industry, I wouldn't know.

No-one's claiming that Musk doesn't have right of refusal. However, if he does do that for what some may consider personal or petty reasons- which he's entitled to do- others are still free to point out or criticise that. Also, we're talking about cars here- pretty expensive ones outside the price range of anyone who isn't at least moderately "rich" by US standards, but still just cars and not stupidly-rich-Saudi-Price-only-five-were-ever-made-price-level ones either.

Comment Re:Bet Alsop isn't used to being fired (Score 1, Insightful) 339

Musk could have played along with this sort of ruse, or just flipped him off. So he flipped him off. Brinksmanship is a game the rich can play.

That was kind of my point, though. I just see another rich and powerful guy who took some not-entirely-unwarranted criticism very personally (#) and being in a rich and powerful enough position, took his petty revenge against another sort-of-but-nowhere-near-as-rich guy. I appreciate that it's sometimes nice to see the stereotypical "arrogant BMW driving tosser" get their comeuppance and that Musk's fan following might be inclined to see it that way, but I'm pretty sceptical.

There's nothing to indicate that he was doing it for the reasons you gave nor protecting his employees from the customer from hell as others suggested.

On the contrary, it sounds like he knew he had more than enough fawning customers to fill his order books such that he could get away with this- and I suspect the endless adulation may have made him less tolerant to any form of criticism. But that in itself doesn't make Alsop the entitled-customer-from-hell as some seem to think.

(#) If the criticism was taken as personal, it was as much because Musk presents himself as the "face"- as well as the owner- of the company. I don't see that the criticism was excessively personal beyond that.

Comment Re:Legal requirement? (Score 4, Insightful) 339

So if Musk has any reason to believe based on this guy's behavior that this guy will be harassing his employees, he actually has a legal obligation to kick this guy to the curb.

Yeah... no. I don't honestly see anything so far to indicate it was coming anywhere near that, let alone approaching the point where it would become a legal issue.

Can't predict what the guy would be like in the future, but a bit of slightly (at most) and not entirely unwarranted entitled-rich-guy criticism doesn't suggest that so far.

Let's be honest; Musk responded that way because he could get away with it, but it doesn't mean he was doing it for legal (or noble) reasons, just that he was in a position where he could afford to do that in response to something that obviously got under his skin.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.