Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:In other news (Score 1) 548

notwithstanding the fact that no persistent storage device ever made has had any natural relation to 2^20, 2^30, etc.

Are you young or something? ROMs and EEPROMs were persistent but, being addressed just like RAM, were strictly power-of-two devices. Eventually EEPROMs kind of evolved into flash and, at some point, the move to look like spinning disks and to incorporate wear levelling broke flash's need to have power-of-two block counts.

I'm pretty sure the comms guys have always used powers of ten, i.e., 1Mbps means 10^6 bits per second. More and more the old computer shorthand for 1MB = 2^20 octets is being restricted to main memory (RAM) contexts only plus related hardware buffer sizes.

Comment Re:"Greatest success"? (Score 1) 67

They are banning the charging of using a network that is not included in your service. They are banning the charging of using your service on a network that is not paid for by your subscription fees.

Yes, because the network boundaries very often correspond with national boundaries which it's the EU's role to break down. My bytes travel just fine all over the internet without me having to pay all the network providers involved and without me having to pay any special fees either. Peering arrangements are a thing. Why should mobile networks be any different. Next you'll be telling us you're against net neutrality.

Comment Re:"Greatest success"? (Score 2) 67

The government (in this case, the EU) has no business dictating what pricing should be for a particular service

Just like the US government has no business regulating interstate commerce.

Seriously though, the EU is not dictating what the pricing should be, they're only banning the use of a customers location within the EU from being a part of the pricing model. I'm pretty sure service providers can still charge based on call distance if they choose to, they just can't tack on a fee for calls being cross-border. It's a legitimate step to take in bringing Europe closer together.

Comment Re:Displacing jobs? (Score 1) 219

Now, who defines the criteria for "safe"?

The government does, sometimes via agencies they establish for the purpose. Having published criteria would be great. That way it would be harder to ban robots on safety grounds as a smoke-screen for protecting jobs. If they want to ban them as a protectionist measure then fine, as long as everyone's clear on the reason.

Comment Re:Banning is the wrong thing for the elderly (Score 1) 219

San Francisco is filled with delivery services ... for prepared meals, for groceries, for whatever you want.

And what does the safety record look life for those services? If they're using motor vehicles they're going to be killing and injuring people at some rate. What's the safety record for the new robots look like in comparison?

And when you add the fact that these robots each have a human to guide them around, it's hard to see what value they add.

Whether they add value is not for government to worry about. Some business is apparently betting they can make money this way: if they can, there's value in it; if they can't, they'll make a loss and the robots will go away.

Comment Re:Displacing jobs? (Score 1) 219

I hate to say it -- because I'm against the idea of robots barreling around our sidewalks -- but has the city government stopped to ask itself just what problem this startup is trying to solve?

Do you want a world where every business idea has to be approved by the government? If the robots present some kind of danger or hazard to people then, sure, regulate to ensure safety. If the startup can make a profit in a safe way then the government should get out of the way. Banning new technology to protect jobs is the way of the Luddite.

It seems like food delivery is already a well-solved problem

And in the old days weaving to make fabric for clothes was well solved too. I'm not sure being a food delivery person is much more challenging or fun than operating a hand loom and it's probably not as safe. In fact I suspect there's scope for well designed robots on the footpath being all-around safer than the delivery methods they're replacing.

Comment Re:naive question: what's wrong with piratebay (Score 2) 169

what is TPB?

The Pirate Bay

And also, was free & open-source software really not available already on its own webpage?

Web servers use a server-client model that means the server has to have enough bandwidth to satisfy all the clients. Bittorrent is a peer-to-peer model which means all the clients help each other to pass around the data. This makes torrenting a good fit for distributing large datasets, like Linux distributions.

Comment Re:Irresponsible and possibly dangerous (Score 2) 164

At the very least, he should get those tabloids to pay for his moving costs and for a new house.

Don't tell me you support a legal system where media can be made to pay for the consequences of revealing the truth. I don't think we want to go there, though England already leans pretty far in that direction. There's no way the tabloids involved here are going to pay voluntarily if for no other reason than that it would be an admission that they did the wrong thing.

To be clear, doxxing this guy is unconscionable conduct on the part of the media companies responsible. The more they do this, and especially where it causes damage to innocents, the more pressure there will be to limit press freedom.

Comment Re:Law is you don't have to provide *testimony* (Score 1) 522

As someone else posted here, if the password were "I admit I am guilty of ...", then the password itself would be testimony and therefore it seems it would be protected.

No. There's a difference between use and mention of a word or sentence. Saying "My password is 'I am guilty'" is not the same as saying "I am guilty." The first is mention, the second is use. Or put another way, the quotation marks matter.

Comment How is this Legal? (Score 1) 555

Is this legal? Almost certainly. The vast majority of the lectures are licensed under a Creative Commons license that allows attributed, non-commercial redistribution. The price for this content has been set to free and all LBRY metadata attributes it to UC Berkeley. Additionally, we believe that this content is legal under the First Amendment.

Seems to me that these guys are claiming that the First Amendment overrides the Americans with Disabilities Act in this case. Otherwise, how are they legally able to publish when UCB themselves say they can't? Did UCB's lawyers miss this angle or is there some other reason the situation is different for

Comment Re:Glad I Live in America (Score 3, Interesting) 115

By the way, since you apparently burned all your dictionaries during Brexit, libel is stating something damaging as factual about a person in writing. It was clear that that tweet was an insult and not real libel: i.e. "I saw/heard so and so deface(d) a war memorial."

The dictionary is the wrong book. Judges are going to go by the legal statutes which define what libel is. They only need to fall back on dictionaries if the statutes don't themselves define a term and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the laws of England spend pages and pages defining what libel is. I wouldn't blame the judge in this case either; the politicians wrote the laws.

Comment Re:Desert (Score 1) 457

the main reasons the dam was built was to provide a water supply and flood control.

Well which was it? Water supply would mean you'd keep it as full as possible. Flood control means the opposite. Given what's going on, i.e., worse flooding than if the dam hadn't been there, even if it doesn't fail, it's fairly clear that flood control was given almost zero priority in operating this dam.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Inquiry is fatal to certainty." -- Will Durant