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


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

Comment: Re: I was wondering if/when this would be on /. (Score 1) 86 86

by petermgreen (#49986017) Attached to: ICANN Seeks Comment On Limiting Anonymized Domain Registration

Is your personal webpage involved in such activities?

That's the problem. That isn't an easy question to answer.

What does "associated with commerical activities" mean? does running adverts or having a donate button to help pay for hosting count? does posting links to your activities on commercial sites that runs adverts like youtube, facebook and twitter count even if none of the money from those adverts comes to me? does saying you are looking for work on a blog count?

If something like this goes through expect broad interpretations of "commerical" to be used as a stick if someone doesn't like you and/or wants to take over your domain.

Comment: Re:Pulling the game (Score 1) 221 221

To be fair, Rockstar (surely because of a gun Sony pointed at their head, but still-)

It seems far moe likely to me it was rockstar/take 2's own doing. The release plan they went for means the hardcore fans will have ended up buying the game THREE TIMES.

Comment: Re:What a coincidence (Score 1) 35 35

It's perfectly possible technically.

Your carrier can easilly find out what sites you are connecting to and what IPs/ports you are using to do it (and if they are using CGN how those IP/port combinations may through their nat). They can easilly pass that information on to the site operator. For unencrypted protocols they can trivilly inject additional headers. For encrypted protocols they can't inject headers as easilly but they could easilly arrange with the site owner to pass the information over another channel.

Your only real defense is to use a VPN to hide the details of the mobile carrier from the target site and vice-versa. Yes this does mean additional cost and likely performance degredation.

Comment: Re:Seagate had big problems before the flood (Score 4, Informative) 297 297

by petermgreen (#49970911) Attached to: When Will Your Hard Drive Fail?

No theres three


When WD bought out hitatchi's HDD buisness (which got renamed to HGST in the process) the regulators wouldn't allow them to keep the 3.5 inch drive part of the buisness as that would reduce the number of players to two. So that part of the buisness was sold to Toshiba (who already made 2.5 inch drives). http://www.anandtech.com/show/...

I would also note that having the same corporate overlord does not nessacerally imply having the same quality or lack thereof.

Samsung owns Seagate.

You got that backwards, Seagate bought samsung's HDD buisness.

Comment: Re:Already = 65K characters (Score 1) 164 164

by petermgreen (#49959487) Attached to: Unicode Consortium Releases Unicode 8.0.0

2. Why does ANYBODY still use ........... UTF-16?

Programmers use it because the programming environments they work in use it. Notably Windows, .net and Java.

the mind-numbingly stupid

I wouldn't call it stupid. It was a way to add support for more characters to existing 16 bit unicode systems with minimal breakage.

Comment: Re:Whats wrong with US society (Score 2) 609 609

The vehicle would be registered and taxed based on its weight and displacement

Dunno what it's like in other places but here in the UK (which the OP mentioned) vehicles over a certain age (think it's 40 years now, it used to be 25, then for a long time the date was frozen) are counted as "historic vehicles" and don't pay any road tax at all. Afaict most ex-military vehicles run by enthusiasts fall into that category.

Comment: Re:Buggy software is buggy (Score 1) 232 232

by petermgreen (#49947303) Attached to: June 30th Leap Second Could Trigger Unexpected Issues

Even the simplified formula of "leap year every 4 years"

That should have said

Even the simplified formula of "leap year every 4 years" works for 1901 to 2099 which is from before the introduction of computers to beyond what most system designers would consider to be a reasonable system life.

Comment: Re:Buggy software is buggy (Score 4, Interesting) 232 232

by petermgreen (#49947135) Attached to: June 30th Leap Second Could Trigger Unexpected Issues

Leap years and leap seconds are handled very differently.

The rules for leap years are according to a forumula that has been fixed for hundreds of years. Computers typically handle them as part of their conversion from internal "time elapsed since epoch" data formats to "human" date formats and otherwise don't care much about them. Even the simplified formula of "leap year every 4 years"

Leap seconds OTOH cannot be predicted in advance so you cannot realiablly convert "time elapsed since epoch including leap seconds" to "time elapsed since epoch excluding leap seconds" or "human datetime" for future datetimes and to do it for past datetimes requires an up to date list of leap seconds.

Then there is the problem that "time elapsed since epoch excluding leap seconds" which is a common way to represent time (presumablly due to the difficulty in converting "time elapsed since the epoch including leap seconds" to "human datetime" simply cannot correctly represent the times arround a leap second.

The testcase is also anything but simple, to test the code you have to inject fake leap seconds, but for a correct test leap seconds can only be injected at specific times (NTP for example increases it's update rate around possible leap seconds) so either you can only run the test at specific times or your entire test environment needs to run on "fake time". This is a big problem if your tests need to interact with a system outside the test environment in a way that depends on time within the test environment being in sync with time outside the test environment.

Comment: Re:Hell No! (Score 1) 1064 1064

Come to think of it though, if you are working in uint space (that is, unsigned ints), than you *can't* have approached from below zero.

but then if you are working in integer space (signed or unsigned) then you can't really approach at all.for the idea of "approach" to make sense you need to be working in a space (e.g. the rational numbers) where you can get arbiterally close to something without getting there.

Comment: Re:quotation marks (Score 1) 424 424

I call BS

"alpha[beta", "alpha!beta", "alpha£beta" and "alpha\.beta" (the latter proposed by someone further down as a "soloution", clearly without testing it) seem to give much the same results (the little variation I did see was easilly within what could be explained by google's normal non-determinism), giving back mostly pages where the word alpha was followed by the word beta with any random punctuation or sometimes nothing at all in between

Searching for python "[" or c "{" gives many results that don't contain the symbol in question at all and even when the results do contain the symbol the search result doesn't highlight the text around it.

I conclude that google is simply unable to search for symbols and ignores them in it's searches, if you have evidence to the contary please post it.

The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to start with a large fortune.