Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What a bizarre statement (Score 1) 255

by jader3rd (#49524021) Attached to: Twitter Rolls Out New Anti-Abuse Tools

So to protect against silencing, you're going to silence?

Well, if one bully can silence 100 shrinking violets, by removing the bully, twitter will get less silence as the shrinking violets have conversations about how important everyones feelings are on whatever subject matter is worth tweeting about.

If your goal was to get as many eyeballs looking at ads on your platform, wouldn't you trade one bully for 100 shrinking violets?

Comment: Re:People are tribal even when they don't realize (Score 1) 247

by jader3rd (#49478451) Attached to: EU To Hit Google With Antitrust Charges

This is a little bit different than Internet Exploder, which MS was forcing people to keep installed when using the OS. But one could just as easily type into the URL, or even into the URL.

But could just as easily launch Netscape from their desktop as they could IE from their desktop.

Comment: Re:People are tribal even when they don't realize (Score 2) 247

by jader3rd (#49478443) Attached to: EU To Hit Google With Antitrust Charges

You couldn't buy a computer (and still can't) without Windows.

But with a computer you could always buy the parts and build your own. Slashdot will regularly feature posts from companies selling non-Windows computers. Just because IE is installed doesn't force you to use it.

+ - Fifty Years of Moore's Law

Submitted by writes: IEEE is running a special report on "50 Years of Moore's Law" that considers "the gift that keeps on giving" from different points of view. Chris Mack begins by arguing that nothing about Moore’s Law was inevitable. "Instead, it’s a testament to hard work, human ingenuity, and the incentives of a free market. Moore’s prediction may have started out as a fairly simple observation of a young industry. But over time it became an expectation and self-fulfilling prophecy—an ongoing act of creation by engineers and companies that saw the benefits of Moore’s Law and did their best to keep it going, or else risk falling behind the competition."

Andrew Huang argues that Moore's Law is slowing and will someday stop but the death of Moore's Law will spur innovation. "Someday in the foreseeable future, you will not be able to buy a better computer next year," writes Huang. "Under such a regime, you’ll probably want to purchase things that are more nicely made to begin with. The idea of an “heirloom laptop” may sound preposterous today, but someday we may perceive our computers as cherished and useful looms to hand down to our children, much as some people today regard wristwatches or antique furniture."

Vaclav Smil writes about "Moore's Curse" and argues that there is a dark side to the revolution in electronics for it has had the unintended effect of raising expectations for technical progress. "We are assured that rapid progress will soon bring self-driving electric cars, hypersonic airplanes, individually tailored cancer cures, and instant three-dimensional printing of hearts and kidneys. We are even told it will pave the world’s transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies," writes Smil. "But the doubling time for transistor density is no guide to technical progress generally. Modern life depends on many processes that improve rather slowly, not least the production of food and energy and the transportation of people and goods."

Finally Cyrus Mody writes that it seems clear that Moore’s Law is not a law of nature in any commonly accepted sense but what kind of thing is Moore’s Law? "Moore’s Law is a human construct. As with legislation, though, most of us have little and only indirect say in its construction," writes Mody. "Everyone, both the producers and consumers of microelectronics, takes steps needed to maintain Moore’s Law, yet everyone’s experience is that they are subject to it."

+ - 'Free-range' family again at center of debate after police pick up children->

Submitted by jader3rd
jader3rd writes: From the Washington Post.

A couple of months after Danielle and Alexander Meitiv were found responsible for “unsubstantiated neglect” for letting Rafi, 10, and Dvora, 6, walk home from a park close to where they live in downtown Silver Spring, they gave the children permission to do it again. Responding to a call from a citizen, police collected the children and took them to CPS in Montgomery where, 5 1/2 anxious hours later, they were reunited with their parents.

Link to Original Source

+ - U.S. Companies Balking At New Chinese Rules On Data Centers And Encryption->

Submitted by jfruh
jfruh writes: The Chinese government is about to roll out tough new rules on data storage for companies doing business in China, which could require that companies keep data stored in data centers within China and share encryption keys with authorities. The American Chamber of Commerce In China is protesting, saying that China will hamper its own economy in doing this; the Chinese government says that it's not imposing any rules that the United States doesn't also impose.
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Crappy set of rules. (Score 1) 441

by jader3rd (#49467975) Attached to: Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

Manages to insert the government even more in the internet.

Given that we all first started receiving the internet over telephone lines which were subject to Title II, how does saying "Even though you're no longer connecting via a telephone line, you still have to follow Title II" insert even more government to the internet. It's keeping the same amount of government in our internet.

Comment: Re:Why is it even a discussion? (Score 1) 441

by jader3rd (#49467953) Attached to: Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

Why have innovation and free markets when we can have government regulations?

If you've ever read 'On the Wealth of Nations' (the book that kind of defined free markets), you'll notice how most of the book is laying out the required government regulations needed to create a free market. The two aren't mutually exclusive. A free market depends upon government regulations which prevent incumbent players from destroying the free market.

Of course there are government regulations which also cripple free markets, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the lack of government regulations are a free market. They're not.

Comment: Re:Why is it even a discussion? (Score 1) 441

by jader3rd (#49467945) Attached to: Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

IF You want to fix the "Comcast vs Netflix" problem, fix the last mile problem first. IF consumers actually had a choice in providers, beyond Cable vs others, you'd see better customer service.

That would be ideal, but given the reality on the ground, that's not going to happen. The FCC can fix Comcast vs Everyone via Title II, it can't fix every municipal ordinance all across the country.

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten