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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The big accountability (Score 2, Insightful) 42

Word up, go find sources that aren't so biased.

Back at you.

"This is what we got last night: four pallets of water, three pallets of meals and 12 pallets of infant food â" which I gave them to the people of Comerio, where people are drinking off a creek," she said

All of that was what for a city with a population of just under 400,000. She was making a point that what was getting thru was paltry compared to the need, and that further help was needed.

Her standing in front of the pallets of aid was EXACTLY what she should have done. She was being transparent about the magnitude of the crisis versus the magnitude of what was getting thru.

Comment Re:Good reasons and bad reasons. (Score 4, Insightful) 145

FOIA requests aren't automatically granted. There are legitimate reasons to deny the requests, or redact the material. The agency who is processing the request can say "no" and cite one of the valid reasons.

Filing lawsuits against the requester is akin to saying "there is no valid reason to deny the request, but I want to anyway". It is disgusting and these types of lawsuits should be summarily dismissed by the court where they are filed.

Comment Me, too (Score 2) 53

For a long while, Microsoft's business model seemed to be "whatever Google and Apple are doing, do that, too". Every other announcement seemed to follow one by Apple or Google where Microsoft was "and we're ALSO working on that".

Samsung seems to be following the same pattern. Apple Pay and Android Pay begat Samsung Pay. Siri, Alexa, and OK Google? Here's Bixby!

Google Home and Amazon Echo? Samsung whatever.

Good luck with that.

Comment Re:Protecting its own interests (Score 5, Informative) 192

No, it isn't. It is sensationalist headline bullshit.

The article -- which is very good -- is referring to enforcing international agreements about fishing in U.S. exclusive economic zones (EEZ). According to the various international agreements on the seas, fishing, etc. -- it is up to the boundary nation to take care of these things.

It points out the China not only frequently fishes near U.S. borders (among other locations), they haven't ratified key U.N. agreements on international fishing. They are also aggressively using their military to protect illegal fishing in other nation's territorial waters (Indonesia & the Philippines comes to mind). Let's not forget manufacturing artificial islands so they can use them as a basis for territorial claims. (South China Sea)

Comment Re:Offers to see code (Score 4, Insightful) 173

Access to source code is meaningless. You need to be able to match it to the different binaries, otherwise how do you know what you're looking at is what is actually executed?

With complex code that uses dynamic libraries, and is updated sometimes DAILY like anti-malware software is, there is no benefit from viewing source that you don't compile and maintain yourself.

Comment Bullshit (Score 3, Insightful) 270

Fake News at its best. The linked OPINION PIECE over at The Hill starts with a false premise -- that companies run by Elon Musk have gotten approximately $5 billion in taxpayer funds -- and runs blindly with it.

Click thru to the original LA Times from May 2015 and you get this bit of clarity:

The figure compiled by The Times comprises a variety of government incentives, including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits that Tesla can sell. It also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars.

Let's take that apart one piece at a time, starting with the easy ones: discounted loans, factory construction, and end-user rebates.

Tesla's discounted loans were loans that were made by the Dept. of Energy only if Tesla could get matching funding from the private sector. They did. And then paid the loans back, plus interest, a full nine years before they were due.

Yes, they paid them back with interest. That isn't "taking taxpayer money". They got it all back plus some. You know, like capitalism.

How about "end user rebates"? Musk doesn't get those, they go to the person -- taxpayer -- purchasing the electric vehicle. You get them on Nissan Leafs and Chevy Volts as well. And they're only around until the manufacturer sells a certain number of vehicles. Claiming them as a "subsidy" for Musk is dishonest.

Factory construction and tax breaks? State-level incentives made by California, New York, and Nevada because factories bring jobs and other revenue. This isn't unique to Musk or any of his companies. States, Counties, and Cities use tax incentives -- rebates, discounts, and waivers -- in order to lure all sorts of businesses, from Walmart to automotive manufacturers. Trying to call out Musk for this as if it is something special given to his companies, again, dishonest.

Environmental tax credits and grants in general are because the pollution created by the fossil fuel industry is horrendous, and isn't something that individuals can deal with on their own. Large companies get their own subsidies by externalizing the environmental costs -- that is, sweeping the filth under the run and not paying to clean up.

Corporations will shit all over everything if it can make them a buck. Individual who need jobs to survive aren't in a position to fight for even the basics -- that is one of the reasons we have governments.

The environmental benefits of switching to electric vehicles and solar/wind power are massive, and greatly outweigh the downsides (when measured against the coal/oil yardstick).

Yes, the government needs to actively encourage clean technologies. Yes, it is in the tax payers best interest to support these sorts of things. There are always people who will value short term profits over long term benefits, so no, the unregulated free market will not handle this better.

Been there (Love Canal, NY & New Jersey in the 1970s), done that (tetra-ethyl lead, freon, asbestos), not going back for some Ayn Rand-worshiping fanatic who failed to study history or learn anything useful from it.

Comment Re:He does not mean it actually (Score 5, Informative) 81

No, it isn't. You are flat out lying.

Here is an earlier article from the EFF that was carried on Slashdot titled More Than 40 ISPs Across the Country Tell Chairman Pai to NOT Repeal Network Neutrality

Here's one showing who is really supporting the repeal of net neutrality -- with the bulk of all lobbying money ($572 million) being spent by just four companies: AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA).

The simple truth is the big telecom companies want to have the benefits of common carrier legal protection, without the limitations. They ALREADY have the rights, and abilities, to provide quality of service based on type of traffic. There is NOTHING stopping them from prioritizing VoIP traffic over e-mail because of the real-time nature of the service.

That is what they try and claim they can't do, but that isn't what they really want.

What they want is the ability to shape traffic based on DESTINATION. That is, Comcast will prioritize *THEIR* VoIP traffic but not competitors, like Vonage, unless they pay a premium for it.

That immediately sets up a protection-like racket where major ISPs can force non-ISP content providers to pay extra or their traffic gets degraded.

They've already tried to do this with Netflix and Vonage, to name a couple.

Net neutrality requires that any QoS or throttling that is done for bandwidth management be done UNIFORMLY, and not selectively.

What the hell, more links just because it is so easy:

How about Comcast astroturfing the FCC with bot-generated comments attacking net neutrality?

Comcast injecting packets to slow or disable traffic? Sure!

Hey, how about Municipal Broadband? Guess who opposes it tooth-and-nail even in areas they have no presence in? That's right, the Big ISPs.

Net Neutrality is by far and away in the best interests of both consumers and small ISPs.

Comment Re:Coding is now VocTech. (Score 1) 106

In the United States, "union shop" is a workplace where membership in the union is mandatory. All non-management employees are required to be dues-paying members of the union as a condition of employment. Dues are automatically deducted from your paycheck.

It is an artifact of the way our Congress passed laws regarded collective bargaining. By law, any benefits negotiated by a union apply to all labor employees, not just dues-paying members. You can not be a member and still get all the benefits provided by the employer that the union wins through bargaining.

That is why you have to pay attention when you see union numbers reported as "represents" vs "members". The former are in places where you aren't required by law to be a member, but you get the benefits they negotiate. The latter means dues-paying member.

Some States allow union shops, where other States don't. The latter are commonly referred to as "right to work" States. The implication being you have the right to work without being forced to join a union.

Slashdot Top Deals

Systems programmers are the high priests of a low cult. -- R.S. Barton