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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Iron Sky, sitrict 9 (Score 1) 1222

I love Iron Sky -- the only disappointment was the rendering of the starfield that represents "outer space". Way too many stars -- looks fake. The rest of the movie however -- fantastic and the heroine is a real babe too! :-)

I also like 5th Element, Armageddon, Demolition Man, Independence Day and a few other blockbusters. Okay, I'm a sucker for big budgets, name-actors and CGI :-)

Comment Re:Original Content? (Score 1) 76

YT has no real incentive to take down re-uploaded videos that have been monetized by someone else in a timely fashion -- in fact it's very much in their favor not to take them down quickly.


Well think about what happens to the ad-revenues generated by these re-uploaded videos before they're removed?

Where does it go?

I don't think it goes to the actual original video owner and they're sure as hell not going to refund the advertisers -- so it's a nice little earner for YT because I'd bet the money goes straight into their own vaults.

I've lost track of how many hundreds of copyright claims I've filed against folk who have re-uploaded many of my more popular vids and it's a hugely time-consuming task -- time that I'd rather spend making new vids. I suggested to YT some time ago that they really ought to do something like this, especially when new channels pop up and have hundreds of videos added overnight. In such cases you can be almost 100% certain that they're running a script that downloads and re-uploads other people's vids.

Comment Kill two birds with one stone? (Score 2) 76

I blogged about a similar proposal earlier in the week but I suggest that they go even further.

They should also come up with two content pools -- one (the premium pool) containing YouTube channel partners who meet a much tighter criteria -- such as 10 million views and 100K subs -- and another that contains all the others. These "premium" content creators would be vetted for the nature of their content (ie: ad-friendly) and offered to the J&J, Verizon, UK Government advertisers who are presently not advertising because of the hate/racist/extremist vids their ads were appearing against.

If they properly vetted these premium channels then they could offer big-dollar advertisers placements which they know would not be on offensive content -- and attract a premium ad-rate at the same time.

I recall back when the YT Channel Partner program kicked off, earnings were good for content creators because the entire ad-revenue pie was divided amongst a much smaller number of content creators. Viewers also got a much better experience because we didn't have every man and his dog monetizing 30 second "cute cat" videos with a 30 second unskippable preroll. Advertisers also got a good deal because their ads were only being placed on channels that had proven their worth and the quality of their content by having been chosen for the program.

Once they opened the doors so that everyone could monentize, the existing channel partners saw a huge drop in earnings. Now, with the big-dollar advertisers fleeing in droves, they're probably going to see yet another drop. This is further aggravated by the bugs in YT's new system for automatically detecting and demonetizing potentially "unfriendly" vids. Lots of YT's biggest channels have had significant numbers of their vids automatically demonetized by this lame system -- so are seeing an even greater drop in revenue as a result.

Unfortunately it's YT's greed that has created the current situation so I doubt they'll wind the clock back enough to solve it.

Comment Meanwhile... (Score 1) 42

How many complaints were there of excessive noise caused by parties?

How about barking dogs?

Drivers speeding?



By comparison, a few complaints about drones (often from people who believe the ridiculous hysteria drummed up by the media on this subject) seems to pale into insignificance doesn't it.

Wait... surely it's time for an other "Drone doesn't hit aircraft" story from a media bereft of all integrity and honesty!

Comment That's a worry! (Score 5, Insightful) 30

So a precisely tuned flicker-frequency (40Hz in mice) does great things for brain function and maintenance -- so what deleterious effects do things like CRT monitors, mains-powered fluro/LED lighting etc have on our brains -- given that they're operating "out of sync" with our gamma waves?

Could it be that the increase in dementia/Alzheimer's is related to our exposure to such off-frequency flickering on a very wide scale, thanks to modern technology?

Comment What the? (Score 5, Informative) 110

So they didn't correlate the IMU data with ranging radar or even barometric altitude information so as to avoid this?

I know weight and volume are at a premium on such craft but a barometric sensor (even one capable of operating in Mars's rarefied atmosphere, is the size of a thumbnail and weighs just a fraction of a gram.


Comment Why don't they... (Score 2) 60

Instead of storing a music track (or movie) as an MP3 or MP4 file on a single server, why not break it up into a bitstream in chunks of less than a byte and distribute it amongst a large number of servers. Each file on each server would then appear to be nothing but a random bitstream bearing no relation to the actual original work.

To access/download said movie/music, all you need is the right piece of software and the key which activates a function that downloads the bitstream fragments from the relevant servers and re-orders them into the original track.

This way, no server will have a copy of the copyright-infringing material that could be recognised as the offending work so surely could not be the subject of a copyright violation.

Since the servers would be useless without the key and the key would be useless without the servers -- neither part constitutes the copyrighted work.

Yeah, it's a form of distributed encryption -- but how do copyright holders issue a takedown notice for something that is clearly not their copyrighted content?

Just a thought. Probably already been done because there's nothing new in the universe.

Comment How long will he last? (Score 0) 2837

If I was Mr Trump, I'd be gravely concerned that those who have most to lose from this victory might seek out a grassy knoll somewhere to "put things right". From what I read of history, it would not be "unprecedented" -- which would then leave the USA "unpresidented". People who aspire to power often don't take failure very well.

Comment Re:I'll get real worried (Score 2) 96

Too late!

Here in New Zealand Samsung did a huge recall of washing machines that were burning houses down. Apparently, when used with a full load, the machines would splash water on the electrics and the resulting current flow could precipitate a fire in which the plastic parts of the machine (top and cover) went up in flames -- setting fire to anything else that was nearby (such as your house).

Samsung delivered my replacement machine this week (after I had to wait a hell of a long time) and I asked them if I got a free Note 7 phone to go with it -- since it's Guy Fawkes this weekend and sometimes those bonfires are hard to get lit after a spring shower.

They said "no". Bugger!

Anyway, the new machine is so ugly we've called it Davros.

Comment The terrorists have won (Score 5, Insightful) 247

When your own government acts like terrorists -- you know the terrorists have won.

The terrorists have very effectively smashed the US Constitution and removed a huge swathe of "freedoms" that were previously enjoyed by Western nations. They did not do this alone -- the governments of those nations were complicit with the terrorists' objectives by bending to the pressure.

As Midnight OIl said: I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Sadly, Western governments have opted to strip their peoples of the freedoms they're (allegedly) trying to protect, in promise of security.

Benajin Franklin quote goes here [....]

Comment Re:Why is it a problem? (Score 1) 192

It's not the registration that is the problem -- it's the contract that the FAA forces upon you when you register.

Section 336 clearly states that the FAA may make no new rules to control model aircraft so they've been clever as a fox. The FAA has no way to make new rules to control these craft so they conjured up a contract and called it "registration". In order to register you must agree to the terms of the contract which include restrictions that were not previously present -- such as not flying over 400 feet AGL etc. Once you've registered, you have agreed to that contract and breaching it (such as flying over 400 feet AGL) exposes you to legal action for breach of the contract. So, the FAA have created new rules by stealth in the form of this binding contract.

It's a crock and has been done solely to sidestep the decree of Congress. Nasty work!

Even nastier is how little has been done to highlight this fact. Thank goodness *someone* is taking them to court over this dirty dealing.

Comment Re: Worst of both worlds (Score 1) 192

The problem is that the FAA (and other regulators around the world) have chosen to penalize the genuine hobbyist for the acts of the idiots. This is totally uncalled for and unfair. Imagine if, every time some dick-head decided to break the speed limit, *every* responsible driver was penalised as a result. That's the situation we have here with drones.

The regulators can't even define what a drone is accurately or consistently so instead of making even the smallest effort (such as differentiating between craft that have onboard GPS and an autonomous or semi-autonomous capability -- such as auto-land, return to home etc) they consider everything that flies without a pilot to be a drone.

This is just laziness on the part of regulators and gross unfairness towards the responsible members of a hobby that has for decades proven itself to be safe and family-friendly.

Ultimately, we have a bunch of suits who fly desks telling the rest of us (some like myself who've been flying model aircraft for over 50 years) under threat of severe fines and/or imprisonment, what's safe and what's not. Ludicrous!

Slashdot Top Deals

We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission