Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment A 2x2 board has an infinite amount of games... (Score 1) 117

... But only 85 legal positions, with many being mirroring positions.

Placing two stones of the same color over the diagonal of this board leads to an absorbing state.

Any other state can be reset by either black or white to a single stone.

This is assuming the players are not playing with the rule of no repetition (but with the rule of no suicide).

For clarity, see the rulebook.

Comment Re:Socialism (Score 1) 458

The first paragraph in your link says this:

It is not merely the preemptive conciliation that afflicts politicians who are ready to subordinate Christian civilization to Islam;

Which tells me that:

a) This person is suffering of islamophobia
b) This person is furthermore suffering of delusions of paranoia, more specifically that there is a conspiracy to turn western democracies into theocraticly run islamic states. If anything, we're much more likely to become theocraticly christian states - but I wouldn't really worry about that either. The chances of either happening is less than the chance of you specificly dying in a terrorist attack (which, coincidentally, is less than the chance of getting hit by lightning).

Both notions means that anything this delusional person says is to be taken with a few kilograms of salt, and thus your information is unreliable at best and pure lies at worst.

Comment Re: Who has time? (Score 1) 58

Then GTFO from the US. Move to like, Europe where work-to-live is the norm. (Where I live everyone has a right to 5 weeks of vacation each year, for instance)

Or simply make some cuts in your spendings and work less. It's quite possible but do require some time and effort.

Or go to your employer and start demanding some stuff. If they truly value you, they will agree to most reasonable requests.

Comment Re:Is ISO even relevant? (Score 1) 42

That depends on what you call a standard then.

Would you say Skype is an industry standard when it comes to IM?

No? Why not?

And then the second question; if Skype with its millions of users is not a standard, then why is XMPP with one quarter of Skypes userbase considered a standard? An open protocol, sure, but an actual standard?

It only becomes a standard if most people are already using it (de-facto) or if a body with big enough authority blesses it and push for it's implementation (de-jure). XMPP is not de-facto, neither de-jure. Sorry.

Comment Re:Is ISO even relevant? (Score 1) 42

Actually it *is* a great example, because you still have four isolated islands (+ a bunch of smaller ones) of Facebook, Skype, Google, rest of XMPP network not talking to each other (Google refuse to implement S2S encryption on their servers, making it incompatible with rest of XMPP network). So yes it is indeed a non-standard mess, even though open standards exist.

Comment Re:Is ISO even relevant? (Score 5, Insightful) 42

Yes, but in most of those cases it's because:

a) There are NO standard format in that particular field, only a bunch of competing (open/closed) formats (see for example the current mess of IM).
b) Such a standard exists, but didn't for a very long time which created a non-standard legacy mess that needs to be cleaned up by someone.

Comment Re:So how many people are still using XMPP? (Score 1) 63

It has had that for years yet not a single client has managed to give a easy-to-use alternative for all these years. Not one.

If Jingle require STUN/TURN then there must be an easy way to discover these services. I've been waiting patiently for a decent client/server combo, but none has materialized, and by now it's too late. (And yes, Prosody kicks ass and takes names, but clients are still lacking, big time).

Comment Re:Why IPv6 is broken (Score 1) 595

You are aware that any attempt to change the mandatory part of the IPv4 header would result in an incompatible header in any case, yes? So what does that mean?

It means that no matter which way you twist and turn the problem, you cannot escape the fact that in order to increase the address space of IPv4 you *must*, per *definition*, create an incompatible protocol. Which makes sense, of course. If you change a fundamental part of the protocol well, then it's not really the same protocol anymore, is it?

So instead of putting yet another band-aid on a protocol the engineers stepped back, took a long, good look at the problem and said "hey, IPv4 just can't do all the things we want it to, and since we will break compatibility anyway, let's create a new protocol that actually handles all of these edge cases we didn't see last time we designed a protocol, while we're at it!"

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