Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Rest of Worlds is messed up Cuba looks fine (Score 1) 64

Or, to clarify what "censorship" is at play here, the reason behind the download bottleneck here is US government siege/sanctions policy vs. Cuba preventing construction of Florida-Cuba cable. And apparently an unwillingness of US networks/ Google to peer with and route thru Venezuelan networks. All in all, the easiest most direct improvements to the situation are not in Cuban hands here, it would seem.

Comment Re:Russia is dumb (Score 1) 126

running over tons of cheese with a tank to make a political statement, rather than distributing it to the needy.

Dial back the political hysteria, and consider this as application of standard import substitution policy. If Russia gave it away free to "the needy", Russian producers' sales would be reduced, sales which are needed to justify investments in local production. The EU and US use similar practices themselves, between actual destruction and paying farmers to keep lands fallow.

Comment Re:Common core manufactures them (Score 1) 509

None of current US Representatives or Senators were educated under "Common Core" standards, and I would hazard that a large number were educated in private schools to begin with. BTW, I believe the poster "amightywind" meant to refer to "collectivist", not "collectionist" state democrats. :-O ...Might want to back that claim up with comparative statistics for scientific literacy in Democratic vs. Republican controlled states....

Comment Forest, not Trees (Score 2) 509

This article is just missing the point. There is nothing shocking that such people exist, or that some of them may even be elected to the national legislature. What is shocking is that they are crucial to the balance of power in that legislature. And that comes down not to them or their co-believers, but much broader aspects of American political structure. Normally one would expect the US House of Representatives to be MORE representative than the US Senate, as the Senate is all elected by the plurality winner takes all vote of entire states, while the House is elected by smaller numbers of citizens. That is in fact exactly the opposite of the case, with the US House of Representatives returning strong Republican majorities despite Democrats winning the popular vote in House races over-all. That is due to gerry-mandering of districts, which creates electoral 'ghettos' with super-concentration of support for one political party, which ends up being "wasted votes" (since having more than a majority or plurality in a district doesn't gain any more representation in Congress): In many states, one party needs from 1.2 to 1.6 times as many votes to get the same number of representatives in Congress, again reflecting the "wasted vote" phenomenon, even while the official paradigm is "one person one vote". Each state is allowed to re-district as it pleases, de facto according to the balance of power in that state), in other words tending to serve the majoritarian group in that state... i.e. exactly counter to the apparent purpose for having a larger number of more granular smaller-population districts vs. state-wide votes for Senators. Now one can expect Republican-majority states to gerrymander to their own favor, and Democrat-majority states to do likewise (and they both do so), but that doesn't account for all of the discrepancy. In fact there are 6 states that return Democratic majorities on Presidential votes, and over-all popular vote for House seats, yet return majority Republican House Representatives. One of these, Pennsylvania, in fact depended on Democratic votes in their State Congress to achieve the majority needed to confirm the gerrymandering. If you Google that topic, you will see the rationale given by those Democratic State Congressmen to be about as coherent as these Anti-Science Representatives quoted in the article. If ONLY those 6 states returned Representatives in line with their over-all popular vote, there would basically be a permanent US House Democratic majority. Not even all 6 of those states would be needed to switch in order to achieve that majority. Several of those states allow for citizen referendum, so there is no impediment to a popular referendum changing the representation/districting formula, yet that is not done. There is even the possibility to impose a nationwide change having consistent standards to avoid wasted votes, via Article V nationwide constitutional convention, whose requirements to convene have already been met, so such a Convention should go ahead to create Amendments which 3/4 of states then need to approve, by popular vote or their legislature. Yet that is not done. There are nutsos and science deniers all over the world. They are not the problem with the US' political system, the US' political system is the problem. So to blame this narrow sect of ignorants is absolving the larger body politic of it's responsibility for allowing such a system to persist. This system makes many votes simply not count in terms of final outcome, not to mention side-lining any parties outside the "2 parties of power". A system of Open-List Mixed Member Proportional Representation retains the link to local district which all members chosen because of their popularity in that district (either by plurality/majority, or as the highest level of support that party received), and can accomodate independent (non-party) local candidates and splitting support for parties at local and over-all levels (to avoid supporting a hated local candidate whose party over-all is attractive). The path is open to change that system, such a process is exactly allowed for in the US Constitution, and by using a national convention expressly called for the purpose, can side-line the 2-party representatives who are married to the existing system.

Comment Corporate Rent-Sucker Double Think (Score 1) 466

[Net Neutrality is] not how the Internet, or telecommunication for that matter, has ever worked,' writes AT&T Senior Executive Vice President of Legislative Affairs, James Cicconi.

Last I checked, Netflix has never paid such fees before, nor has anybody else. I.e. net neutrality has being how it has always worked. This latest racket targetting Netflix happened just months after an FCC Net Neutrality rule was over-turned by courts on a technicality. I.e. said rule was in force previously, and ISPs were following said rule. Fuck these rent-sucking vampires. Does this sort of thing happen in non-US jurisiction at all? Or is this just the US' latest gift to the world after software patents?

Comment Re:The group's Board of Directors (Score 3, Interesting) 93

The listing terms that the HKEx finds objectionable are centered around the proposed structure of the company, which would allow their 28 partners to control a majority of the board [] - even though they only own around 13 percent of the company. Apparently, the HKEx regulators still cling to the quaint notion that small investors are important. I guess those HK guys have a thing or two left to learn about how real capitalism works.

Non-voting shares are pretty standard in public stock corporations world-wide. Indeed HKEx itself runs such schemes, namely it's OTC Clearing subsidiary:

OTC Clearing Hong Kong Limited (OTC Clear) was incorporated as a subsidiary of HKEx in May 2012 for the purpose of acting as the clearing house for OTC derivatives in Hong Kong. Subsequently, HKEx, under the founding member programme, invited 12 financial institutions as founding members of OTC Clear, who in total hold 25 per cent of issued share capital in OTC Clear (in the form of non-voting ordinary shares) whilst HKEx holds the remaining 75 per cent. HKEx continues to hold 100 per cent of the voting ordinary shares of OTC Clear.

Many publicly traded companies listed in HK in fact have 75%+ of shares owned or controlled by one entity, which has the same net effect as non-voting shares, since such an ownership majority can impose it's will regardless. HKEx has intimated that their true concerns revolve around mainland Chinese court procedures not being amenable to minority shareholders, although if they want to push that, that kind of calls into question HKEx's entire raison d'etre. AFAIK, HK courts can still enforce transfers of shares themselves as judgements, and if HKEx is worried about things that go on outside of HK jurisdiction then most companies traded on HKEx shouldn't be listed there. Realistically, HKEx is known for allowing plenty of shady practices that make it a bourse of last resort, and maybe they decided to stand up here just so they have some pretense of respectability.

Comment Lawyer up! (Score 1) 166

The effective solution is suing these PR firms, who directed their employees to do things inherently violating Wiki's terms of service and which can be found liable for civil damages in degrading the quality of Wiki's product, which is supposed to follow the terms of service.

Comment Re:Wikimedia could copy StackOverflow's process (Score 3, Interesting) 166

The outcome of that would be PR firms would just have their sockpuppets build up a history of 'good editing' so that their PR-shill edits will not be challenged. Alot of that can be done by automated means, e.g. scanning articles for generic grammar issues, minimal human input to verify it makes sense, and you can have a large number of 'good editing' events build up.


Of course rudder position doesn't indicate heading, which is why I did'nt write that. But if GPS spoofing is to "take over navigation without pilot detection" and divert a ship or plane from it's straight line path, that means the rudder needs to turn to achieve that adjusted path... Which the pilots would be able to detect if an autopilot initiates it, and if they are not on autopilot, GPS spoofing alone cannot "take over navigation".


They can spoof the GPS position which plots on a navigational map, but if the ship is not moving in a straight line that means the rudder (or steerable propulsion pods) need to move, which have their own indicators. If the steering is locked to a wheel, the ship will not turn unless that wheel turns.

Comment Re:Out of the frying pan.... (Score 1) 219

Sure, but this isn't a permanent ban, it's a ban for two years only (IMHO 3 years would be better in order to get solid data analyzed from 2 years of results). As the article mentions, the country that is doing fine (Australia) doesn't have a mite problem, so for countries that do have a mite problem, it seems a valid question to assess whether nicotinoids (or any other potential cause/amplifier) play any role in causing or amplifying the syndrome. When mites can be satisfactorily repressed, then allowing a regime similar to Australia is reasonable, until then a different regime may be called for. I don't see what the article's comments about perfect apples are about, if there are no other effective, legal pesticides to spray, then there may not be 'perfect no mark, no bug apples' for the next 2-3 years if that is what it takes to assess neonicotinoids. If there are other options (nicotine!?), they may work. But neonicotinoids are not a natural feature, there is no inherent right to spread poisonous chemicals in the environment, so nobody should have any expectation of a right to the results of nicotinoid use. Mankind survived without neonicotioids, and with 'imperfect apples', so having a real scientific assessment of with/without neonicotinoids for 2-3 years probably won't mean the end of human civilization.

Slashdot Top Deals

We can found no scientific discipline, nor a healthy profession on the technical mistakes of the Department of Defense and IBM. -- Edsger Dijkstra