Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 552

by sumdumass (#49145121) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Their problem is the FCC has already demonstrated that it does not have the authority and congress never intended for it to have the authority to reclassify the internet. It is a self made case already put together by the FCC.

The courts did not say the FCC had the authority to reclassify the internet either. They said in order to regulate the internet in the ways the FCC attempted to do they would have to reclassify it under title 2. Bow that is important because the court saying you need a license to drive a car is not the same as saying you have the right to get a valid license when you are otherwise barred from getting one (under aged, epilectic, blind, already revoked for infraction or whatever).

But don't get me wrong, something needed done. This just isn't it and the FCC acting indepentent from legislation is unconstitutional as well as frightening. This is sloppy and will be undone easily barring action from congress.

Comment: Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 552

by sumdumass (#49144213) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Do yourself a favor and pay attention. Look the report i mentioned up too.

They go into explicit detail with statements from congress on the passage of the 1996 telecom act as well as previous FCC interptetations and state it is clear congress never intended the internet to be regulated other than an information service. They even mention VoIP in it.

In other words, the lawsuit to reverse this has already been laid out. Congress never intended the internet to be regulated under title 2 and congress has not changed any laws since then. You have a modern FCC who overstepped its abilities and was shot down by the courts, now all the sudden they ignore over 2 decades of interpretation of law and without any legislative action at all, moved around the courts. Of course they will lose the lawsuit.

Comment: Re:Interesing... (Score 1) 365

by PopeRatzo (#49144105) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

then I'll care about what "prominent members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate" think about climate change.

Take a look at what James Inhofe (R-OK) who is chairman of the fucking Senate Committee on the Environmentthinks of global warming. TRIGGER WARNING: IF STUPIDITY UPSETS YOU DO NOT CLICK.

Comment: Re:GNUradio? (Score 1) 129

Test equipment is allowed to transmit and receive on those frequencies. If it looks like a radio, it can't. I have a number of cellular testers hanging around here that can act like base stations, mostly because I buy them used as spectrum analyzers and never use the (obsolete) cellular facilities. Government has different rules regarding what it can and can't do in the name of law enforcement, although FCC has been very reluctant to allow them to use cellular jammers.

If you can afford it, something from Ettus would better suit your application.

Comment: Serial Cable (Score 1) 324

by Jane Q. Public (#49143559) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Old PC File Transfer Problem
The Laplink idea was copied by Microsoft. If it has one of the more recent versions of XP, you can use a serial link.

You did not say how recent the destination machine is. If it has a serial port and XP or 98, you can just use a null modem cable. If it's a newer machine, you will have to use a null modem cable AND a serial-to-usb cable or adapter on the newer end. Further, if you are on Windows 7 or later, you will have to install Virtual PC and then XP mode (both free from Microsoft), so you can run a virtual XP window.

Then start up serial networking and transfer your data. One machine is 'host' and the other is 'client'.

Comment: Re:Simple methodology (Score 1) 271

by Jane Q. Public (#49143253) Attached to: The Programmers Who Want To Get Rid of Software Estimates

Then something changes and blows the estimates out of the water. But the MBA's think since only one line in the spec changed, the schedule should stay the same.

And that's when you re-negotiate, or quit.

From my experience, it's easy to make bad estimates because bad estimates are easy to make. If it's a big project, take your worst possible guess, and multiply by 1.5.

One of the biggest reasons bad estimates are so easy to make, is that the stakeholders "forget" to include too many of the details. And even, sometimes, some of the big essential features. It's debatable how many of these things are really "forgotten", versus not known or just intentionally left out to lower the estimate.

Therefore, I go about it this way:

I write out clearly what the specs are. Often this is just a repeat of the stakeholder's own specs. I estimate each major "feature" in the specs.

My standard contract states that this is only an estimate, based on the written scope of work just described. If at any point it looks like the work will take more than 10% over the estimate, it is time to examine why and the terms must be re-negotiated.

If any significant changes or additions are made to the scope of work, the terms must be re-negotiated.

These stipulations make sure everybody is talking, and if anything goes over estimate, everybody knows why. It also makes sure that if they add more work, I get more money.

I have a third stipulation I put in every contract: single point of contact. The stakeholder(s) must appoint one person, and one person only, who is to give me instructions and discuss the specifications. Nobody else, even the CEO, is allowed to do that.

I insist on these. So far, I have not had anybody turn me down because they thought the terms were unreasonable. That last clause keeps me from getting caught between conflicting instructions from different people. Other than that one, these are SOP for many engineering contracts. I just borrowed from those.

"Well, if you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what *can* you believe?!" -- Bullwinkle J. Moose