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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:How fast is just too fast? (Score 1) 70

by Kjella (#48670509) Attached to: US Internet Offers 10Gbps Fiber In Minneapolis

The question is if your diminishing return is less than their diminishing return. My impression is that with fiber connections you have a fairly high cost just because they need to maintain a fiber line, end point equipment, maintenance, service, support, billing and so on. From there they usually offer huge leaps in speed for relatively modest price gains, often like double the speed for 15-20% price gains and that shit multiplies. I could pay about 75% of my current rate to have 20 Mbit instead of 100 Mbit, even though I don't absolutely need 100 Mbit very often it's not worth it. That goes up to a point, then you need some kind of special equipment and the cost skyrockets when you pass out of the "normal" class of equipment and into special gear. Today gigabit isn't actually available to me and if it were it'd cost 200% extra, it's not worth it but if it was 50% I'd probably take it. And my motherboard wouldn't need upgrading.

I'd say 10G is a different story and only about bragging rights at this point, but who knows what the future will bring. If "everybody else" had symmetric gigabit lines, 10G might have a few uses. Sure it costs a bazillion now, but so would a 100 Mbit line not that long ago. It would be a lot more useful to get people on gigabit lines though, it's no good having a huge pipe if nobody can keep up. Already with my 100 Mbit symmetric my upstream is often faster than their downstream, having gigabit would not help at all but if they get upgraded it'd make more sense for me to upgrade. Like for example there's a rural roll-out that'll probably cover my cabin next year, if that's true I could do 100 Mbit offsite, online backup between machines I control. That would be rather neat.

Comment: Re:I was suspicious from the moment they denied it (Score 1) 88

by physicsphairy (#48670455) Attached to: Did North Korea Really Attack Sony?

Why does it make no sense to deny you were involved? North Korea typically does deny things which they actually do ( for example) while taking credit for things they don't or can't do. Their whole game is to live behind an obfuscation of words. If we actually believed them when they said they were prepared to nuke us, they would be smoking crater already. However, if we didn't quietly worry about it, they wouldn't so easily milk concessions out of us (and would probably get invaded). Their ideal outcome would be for anyone planning another Kim Jong Un movie to decide it's not worth the financial risk, while still leaving the U.S. government insufficient proof to retaliate. Don't make the mistake of believing the leaders really are as deluded as their rhetoric. They have real strategic objectives behind it.

Comment: Re:"Your eyes oscillate"?? (Score 5, Informative) 147

by tlhIngan (#48667547) Attached to: Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

The whole eye. Our eyes actually cannot detect a static edge, only transitions. The reason we can see non-moving objects is that the oscillations of the eye provide the transitions. There's a simple experiment from long ago which illustrates this vividly: put a black square on a white background, track a subject's eye motion and move that target with the eye motion so that the image is always hitting the retina at the same location, and voila, the subject cannot see that target.

The other reason is the "sensors" we have are quite poor - the eyeball itself is actually a very low resolution device - the high resolution center part of the eye covers such a narrow field of view that it's practically useless if it was a fixed camera, while the peripheral vision is so low res it's unusable.

Instead, what happens is we evolved a gigantic amount of wetware to process the image into a high-resolution image we perceive - the brain does a lot of visual processing, and the eyes rapidly move (or oscillate) to move the sharp high-res center vision around to give you a much higher "virtual resolution" than the actual Mk. 1 Eyeball can achieve.

Of course, this visual processing comes at a price - optical illusions abound because it's very easy to trick the wetware into seeing things that aren't there, because the information is often interpolated, shifted in time, etc.

Comment: Re: Obviously (Score 1) 307

by tlhIngan (#48667473) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

But what will be the reaction of the "activists" when these cameras capture indisputable footage of, say, somebody like Michael Brown launching an unprovoked physical attack against a police officer?

Will they actually admit that maybe the thug involved wasn't such a "good boy", and that maybe it's incorrect to claim "but he didn't do anything wrong"?

Will they just repeatedly deny what the footage shows?

The activists will be activists.

HOWEVER, if they repeatedly deny the scenario that the video shows, it discredits THEM, and the general public would regard them as whackos that need a reality check.

And activist video can be shown in context - often times when something happens those who capture it only show the aftermath, and not the entire scenario. Being able to see before and after what activists record is extremely useful.

So yeah, perhaps the video you see on TV shows Brown getting shot. Then the source video the body cam shows what happened before the camera started recording putting things in even more context.

Comment: Re:Many DDR3 modules? (Score 2) 104

by tlhIngan (#48667425) Attached to: Many DDR3 Modules Vulnerable To Bit Rot By a Simple Program

Data sheets now days are not avalable to the public

Datasheets ARE publicly available. However, they're for the actual DRAM ICs themselves, and not of the modules.

There are only a few DRAM manufacturers out there - Samsung, Hynix, Elpida, Micron are among them.

Samsung Computing DRAM (they also have Graphics DRAM and others). Some of their newest chips don't have datasheets yet, but that'll be forthcoming. The older ones in production do, however.


Micron (and Elpida).

These are all generally available. Since the only real difference between them is a few timing numbers, they're not generally a huge secret - it's all governed by JEDEC standards anyhow.

Memory modules are just collections of these chips so they can be generalized to what you buy in the store for your PC.

Comment: Re:I'm starting to think it's this simple... (Score 1) 58

by tlhIngan (#48667215) Attached to: De-escalating the Android Patent War

Still, if you have a patent, you don't need to sell it. You can license the patent. That what the whole idea was about. So you could make a great smartphone invention, have a patent, and Samsung and Apple would pay you money to use the patent without you having to sell it.

You can't sell a patent. They're not really "owned". (This always comes up, as if /. posters refuse to learn about IP law just like non-tech people refuse to learn about computers. Hrm...).

Look at any patent and you'll see an inventor's list. That's who the patent belongs to. They're not transferrable.

Instead, what IS transferrable is usage rights, aka licensing. And a lot of the time, the use rights are exclusive, because as an inventor, you control who can use it (the monopoly to use the patented invention is the inventor's).

Of course, given a patent takes at least $10,000 to apply for and more if you need to defend and back-and-forth and patent attorneys, what happens is two fold.

First, companies have an "assignment of invention" clause in their employment contracts - which at a minimum says anything you work on during working hours belongs to them. Including anything patented. Or in other words, they get a right to use your invention.

Second, because a company is sponsoring your patent application, well, they make sure they get an exclusive license to your patent.

So the patent's yours but by applying, your company already gets a right to use it, and by taking the company's money, that right becomes exclusive - you exclusively licensed the patent for them to use. And usually, that exclusive license you gave them is non-exclusive to them to re-license those rights to third parties. So as part of the company, they can license your patent to others.

And that's really what gets "bought" and "sold" - the exclusive right to the patent. The original inventors, who have to be real people who worked on the patent (and more than one has been invalidated because inventors were either left off the list, or were because an inventor didn't really "invent" it, but merely worked with the technology) still "own" the patent, but their right to license has been extinguished due to other contractual agreements in place.

Comment: Re:Good timing... (Score 3, Interesting) 307

by meta-monkey (#48667117) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

I'm still furious about the flashbanged baby thing.

The entire circus around Michael Brown was media-generated. Perhaps I need my tinfoil hat adjusted, but I think deliberately so. It's like it was purposely pushed to make black people get up in arms, when clearly, most people looking rationally at the case can wish it didn't happen, but can hardly blame the cop. Brown wasn't innocent; he robbed a store. He wasn't just minding his own business until cops hassled him because he was black; he was walking in the middle of the street. I want cops to stop people walking in the middle of the street and ask them wtf they're doing. He was not an "unarmed teenager;" he was a 300lb man who punched the cop. What the hell? When you drive that story in the media, people like my father who don't think police brutality is a problem take notice of the story, say "this is what the liberals are complaining about? They're morons!" it confirms his biases and he goes right back to ignoring the problem.

Where's the outrage and the marches and protests and media helicopters over flashbanged babies? SWAT teams busting down doors at 3am to serve search warrants? "Overwhelming force?" Budgets that rely on "civil forfeiture" which is literally highway robbery? No, the media pushes the non-story of Michael Brown. Muddies the issue. Ignores the real problems.

It's a conspiracy. A C-O-N...spiracy.

Comment: Re:Obviously (Score 3, Interesting) 307

by meta-monkey (#48667003) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

Not that they were necessarily "better" but I think the attitudes of police towards the public have indeed changed over the past forty years. Forty years ago there weren't SWAT teams. The cops did not bash down your door, throw in flash bangs and shoot your dog to serve a simple search warrant. They....knocked on the door.

Did they always lie (well, they have to and there's nothing wrong with that so long as it's not under oath), plant drugs on people, shoot black people? Yeah. But damn if they weren't more polite about it.

The "us vs them" mentality wasn't so readily apparent. Maybe it was there and we just didn't notice because there weren't cell phone cameras, and they were mainly doing it to black people. Still, I don't remember cops 15 years ago driving APCs, in body armor, all black, and referring to citizens as "civilians." Now I hear that routinely. If we're civilians...what exactly are you? And what exactly is our relationship?

Comment: Re:Many DDR3 modules? (Score 1) 104

by Luckyo (#48666665) Attached to: Many DDR3 Modules Vulnerable To Bit Rot By a Simple Program

Overwhelming majority of "PC gaming benchmark queens" wouldn't give a toss because memory speed hasn't been a bottleneck in gaming in many years.

People who would care are ordinary users and OEMs who would have to absorb the extra cost. Especially to OEMs costs are far from trivial.

Comment: Re:Star Trek 3 - Moar Heist edition? (Score 1) 317

Ya know, to be honest, that wouldn't be that bad. So long as the cause was somehow noble, and they had to use their brains to find a sneaky, non-violent solution to a problem instead of just blowing shit up...

I'd prefer exploration and maybe a suspenseful first contact, trying to understand a truly alien species before conflict erupts. But anything where they don't just immediately jump to photon torpedoes and punching would be a step up.

"No job too big; no fee too big!" -- Dr. Peter Venkman, "Ghost-busters"