Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What does this mean? (Score 4, Informative) 55

A packet is not a byte. A packet is a sequence of bits including a address, other header information and the actual payload.

IPv4 packet will as example have 20 bytes(160 bits) header and a maximum payload of 65,515 bytes(though often lower in practice)

If you were to send a lot of packets with only a single byte payload then each packet will be 168 bits and your 100 Mb/s will result in about 600 000 packets. But at a gigabit connection the actual limit will start to hit for such strange traffic.

Note that normally you would send more than a single byte of information/packet so in most real applications you would need much higher speeds to hit the limit. At 105 bytes of information you would have a total length of 1000, bits so would be at about the limit on gigabit hardware. But still most high bandwidth traffic tends to have much more information in each packet and thus not usually hit such limits.

The limit has really started to hit due to the high availability of 10 gigabit and faster network cards coming down in price.

Comment Re:Yes, we should give up because it is hard.. (Score 1) 684

>I'm unconvinced there really are very many people willing to try.

There never has been many. If you take the total number of people involved in any such endeavor the number is low.

As a random example of exploration: if you count the people willing to do things like polar explorations in the early 1900s the number is really low, yet they existed and while many perished, like in any exploration and it was a tragedy to them, for the humankind as whole explorations have opened new possibilities and expanded our knowledge.

Comment Re:Typical sensationalist Slashdot subjectline (Score 1) 381

In fact the site is not hosted from "A server located in America"

When I run anything against com from Europe I usually get response times of 100ms.

So your questions should likely thus be:
"So what you're saying is that the French law should apply to an American company hosting American data on an American server located in Europe hosted by an American domain, like"

So it is like saying:
"So you are saying an European person holding something Legal in Europe, bought in Europe and visiting America should apply US law to the possession of the item?"

So if they did indeed move it out of Europe the question would go back to:
"So you are saying an European company selling something legal in Europe, But illegal in US by mail to US should not stop doing that when told to by US authorities"

So you think it is perfectly ok for such companies to knowingly continue breaking USPS safety regulations and US laws?

Comment Re:Typical sensationalist Slashdot subjectline (Score 1) 381

Like taking things out of context?

The reason why I wrote that is that you equated two things:
Something a company can do easily to a reasonably high degree and something that is just on experimental status now. Further geolocation techniques have been in use for quite a long time by Google itself.

Can any web company company today easily do geolocation on web services reliably enough to block 90%+ of such request: Yes and they have been able to do that for more than a decade and has been widely used for other things.

Can any automotive company today do speed limit detection well enough to stop speeding in 90%+ of such cases: No. It is a technology that is "almost here", that is it is available on certain models of certain car brands but has not had any wide deployment.

When the second technology has been in wide use for more than a decade, ask if car manufacturers will be liable to have the technology in all cars then. My guess is a yes.

As for fines: No, The French do not want Google to be liable for the thing their customers use, but they do want Google to actually do an effort at blocking that illegal use.

In the same way I do not think the car companies will be liable for the fines, but they will be liable of they did not do an effort to stop such once the technology to do so is commonplace.

Comment Re:Typical sensationalist Slashdot subjectline (Score 1) 381

You may want to look at something like adsense, where google is selling adverts claiming to be able to limit impressions to a given town. In reality it does not of course work that well, but just implementing the same level of detection on this and they could well say "we have done our best" and have it stick.

Comment Re:give up because it is and (Score 1) 684

Well, it depends on what country's Tax payer money you are talking, but for US the NASA spending is less than 3% of the military spending.

Thus shaving of even 1% of the military spending would help more than 25% from NASA spending and and there should be something to shave in the Military budget as US spends about 1/3 of the world total military spending.

So if you want to save those lives, you may want to start looking somewhere else.

As for the vanity achievement.. well, you might want to read what all benefits came from the Apollo program.

Comment Re:Typical sensationalist Slashdot subjectline (Score 0) 381

>Ford make it possible for me to exceed the speed limit. That doesn't make Ford liable for my tickets.
Flag as Inappropriate

We are only now entering a stage where some cars can detect speed limits. It is a technology that is not yet widely available but it will in not far long future,

If you think that within a few years of that technology being commonly available there will not be a requirement for new cars to start nagging about going over speed limits and then some years later stopping you then I guess our views of how governments work is fundamentally different.

And if you think that some company setting up a webshop and selling you a car across the borders including transport inside your borders will not be liable for not having such a device because it was sold from a shop outside your borders and you are breaking the law by using the car in your country.. well, it must be a nice fantasy world you live in.

Comment Yes, we should give up because it is hard.. (Score 0) 684

.. but actually not.

Great discoveries and advancements come about because there are humans willing to try to do hard things. Often when you do those you fail, but in the end when enough tries succeed the humankind is better off.

There have always been naysayers and there will always be naysayers, luckily for us there have been enough people willing to try.

Comment Re:Marketplace Justice (Score 2) 109

The problem is that most people do not think about security and thus will not demand that in products. So the market place will not demand such.

Thus in the future with IoT, we will soon see a lot of stuff, the current small scale thing is just the beginning.

In the long run I expect there will be laws and liabilities, but that is still a long way off at this point.

Comment Depends on how far you go (Score 3, Informative) 146

A lot of areas are covered by cellphone data service. So if you go to such areas you would likely only need a cellphone with tethering, laptop with as long run time as possible and a solar charger.

Basically you would charge our phone with the solar charger and have your laptop off until needed.

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen