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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Altough I agree (Score 1) 58 58

My favorite feature is Birds Eye view, which uses aerial photos rather than satellite photos. Sometimes that can get you better info from that, since they usually have 4 different perspectives you can rotate through, and they are much closer and more detailed.

That was true, but Google was pretty quick to copy it. They now seem to have incorporated it into their 3D view as well, which makes panning somewhat better (and more importantly hides the worst defects in the 3D view by limiting the projection to a POV very similar to where the texture map image was taken from).

Comment: Re:Reference count synchronization across threads (Score 1) 295 295

Actually the reason for the Global Interpreter Lock is because cPython decided that had less overhead than making the reference counters atomic variables (plus you would still need some kind of locking when modifying any object with a reference count greater than one, though this is such a tiny amount of what a typical Python program does that it is probably irrelevant).

I personally have doubts this is true, but the argument is not impossible. I am wondering if their measurements were on older systems, modern ones are better at atomic operations.

Comment: Re:ISP quasi-monopolies (Score 1) 181 181

Wow I'm surprised we're ranked that highly. I didn't expect that we'd be above France and Germany.

But anyway, with all the gigabit projects going on now it seems like the "more competitive option" has come. Basically it took one company to not play along (Google), then another company to get scared and react (AT&T), and now everybody's jumping in.

Comment: Re:Netflix needs to fix this (Score 1) 181 181

That's a great idea, and I'd add a p2p element so the aggregate bandwidth going through interconnections is also reduced. (Simpler than hoping for widespread multicast support.)

If I could donate 5mbps outgoing to Netflix to act as a seed node for others in my area for a reduction in my bill, I'd do that.

Comment: Re:BUT I have an "unlimited" connection! (Score 1) 181 181

Why is that the ideal solution? It seems like we're starting to get some traction with plain old competition from Google Fiber, AT&T Gigapower, Time Warner MAXX, Comcast's 2Gbps thing (don't recall the name), etc. We didn't need government owned infrastructure to do that...

And frankly, if the government owned it I'm not sure these types of upgrades would have been any faster. If the reason it's faster is something like "they can do it via eminent domain and bypassing their own rules and regulations" then that's pretty much bullshit.

Comment: Re:What an amazing surprise! (Score 1) 181 181

Tell me, how much does it cost to call someone 30, 50, or 100 miles away now? Oh wait, it is $0 a min. All from regulating Ma-Bell and having the markets opened.

No, I think that's a result of competition from the internet/data networks. When Ma Bell was broken up into regional Bells, there were still high long distance fees. And yes I do remember that.

Cell phones with extremely high monthly costs, so high that providing long distance was an "eh why not" for the companies involved, sealed the deal. And they drove down costs by using data networks to carry voice. Packet switching vs dedicated lines made a big difference.

Comment: Re:Links to the actual study (Score 1) 181 181

The thing is, they aren't selling you X mbps guaranteed for every end to end connection. That's impossible of course. I'm curious if during this 8pm-10pm window, users can still get their X mbps in aggregate by downloading from many providers in parallel. If so it doesn't sound like a problem, more like a reality of how networks work. If the throttling is based on content, such as movies downloaded from this GTT CDN are throttled but random zip files downloaded from the same servers are going at full speed, that would be bad.

In your gas station analogy, it is running low on gas and each pump can only deliver 5 gallons. Using 2 pumps will let you get what you paid for, so it should be okay.

Comment: Re:Infinity (Score 3, Informative) 1064 1064

Actually IEEE floating point has a signed zero (+0 and -0 are different values) to solve exactly that. If x is positive, x/+0 is +infinity, x/-0 is -infinity. 0/0 (with any type of 0) returns NaN.

However I believe the article was talking about *integer* division by zero, not floating point.

Comment: Re:So this is the dude behind Rhogam? (Score 1) 97 97

When salaries are as high as they are in medicine and in the administrative ranks of charities then I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about "non-profit" vs "for profit." Who cares whether they pay dividends to shareholders or whether they pay out their excess money as 6-7 figure salaries?

Comment: Re:Parents should be liable (Score 1) 254 254

It's hilarious that you've deluded yourself into believing that your desperate little attempts at changing the topic

You should reflect more.

Here, have a reality check: unlike you with your pitiable fixation on selective quoting

Selective quoting.. ahh.. the bane of idiots who say one thing, mean something else, stick fervently to it, and pretend that's what they originally said. Oh no, now he quoted me! The bastard!

the literally life-and-death issue of the recent rise in entirely preventable diseases killing people, traceable to the equally the recent impact of antivaxxer lunacy on public health.

You're seriously an idiot. You can't distinguish between what the article is about, what the "whole page" is about, and what an individual thread is about.

No more food for you from me. Toddle off back under your bridge and starve.

Ohhhh burn!

You sound so stupid it's unbelievable. The weirdest part though is how you're pretending that you know me.

But anyway, I'm glad you're not going to "feed" me any more dumb comments. Hopefully.

Oh shit here comes another reply accusing me of quoting you, and changing the topic!

Comment: Re:Parents should be liable (Score 1) 254 254

*yawn*

Oh my, do you need a nap? That might explain your nonsensical reply to me.

All of which is why I said almost every other case.

Yes, you did, and that's wrong. That's why I replied to you. Virtually every case has effects that go beyond the kids.

none of your three Ever-So-Significant points are the direct causes of otherwise perfectly preventable deaths.

Oh I get it now. You're an idiot! You should have just said so.

You said "the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids." No mention of preventable death. The person you replied to was talking about demonstrable harm to children... again, not preventable death, just harm.

Now why are you pretending that you meant to narrow it from demonstrable harm to preventable death? Do you think that helps your argument? If you restrict the type of bad parenting we're talking about to "things that kill" then you're getting ludicrously incorrect on two fronts instead of one.

First of all, bad parenting that kills children is far more likely to have effects that go beyond the immediate death of the child. So rather than "almost every other case" not having further effects, it is "almost every other case has tremendous effects on others." I mean you really can't get more wrong that you are now with your historical revision.

Secondly, if we're talking about actual death instead of just harm or "bad effects" then anti-vaxxers pretty much drop off the map. Dying from easily preventable disease is very low on the list of stuff that kills kids. First they have to get the disease, which is still rare. Then they have die from the disease, which is also rare. Even in our rather crazy anti-vaxxer country, how many kids from that big measles outbreak in Disneyland? In the meantime, how many have died from, say, homicide -- which, in children, is often related to bad parenting?

Since you seem to need this spelled out too, we weren't discussing people who can't get vaccinated, we were discussing people who can get vaccinated but who are idiotic enough to refuse.

This is just sad.

You said the problem is little sacks of disease walking around. And I agree.

But you seem to not understand that the reason they aren't vaccinated doesn't actually make a difference in terms of their being out there walking around potentially spreading disease.

You are a demonstrated idiot, so let me spell it out a little more. It doesn't matter if it's a religious objection, an allergy, or a vaccine that just didn't work for that person -- the person is still a little sack of disease walking around, and that's a problem.

Now perhaps what you meant was the moral problem of people who intentionally endanger others. But that's not what you said. Do try to keep up with your own posts.

Got any other nits to pick

I enjoy putting people in their place when they talk a bunch of nonsense while trying to sound clever. So if you want to put forward another stupid comment, I'll be happy to reply!

or would you like to try staying vaguely on-topic for once, instead of these pathetic attempts at derailing?

I don't get it, is this some type of ironic humor? My post wasn't off topic, but attempting to derail the conversation by claiming that I derail conversations.. it's kind of funny, but also not funny. I think it's probably just you being an idiot again.

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Working...