Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Screw it (Score 2) 153

SpaceX used to call them "experimental landings". I don't think they use that term any more; nowadays a landing failure would be seen as a pretty significant setback.

IIRC the last three-engine landing burn used up pretty much the entire crush core. As in, it almost failed. They still seem pretty willing to push it straight to the limit rather than the conservative approach of trying it little by little. And as long as the expectations are set right to the engineers that you can push the limits and fail and to the public that we're pushing the limits and might fail, it works quite well for everyone. As long as it's cargo and dry-runs anyway, I'm sure NASA has made it very clear that you don't try any new funny business on manned flights.

Comment Re:I'm shocked! (Score 4, Insightful) 153

Meh, for every person who achieves something there's ten people who want to slap them down and find their faults and their weaknesses and belittle whatever they do. Everything from jocks bullying nerds to the people who have to hate on Jobs, Ballmer, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Jimbo Wales, Musk etc. almost out of principle. That just have to find that Jobs was an asshole and a terrible family man, so the universe is back in balance. Doesn't matter if you're fucking Gandhi somebody's going to get so pissed at you they'll want to shoot you dead. Maybe he's read a bit too many sci-fi novels. Still better to be a dreamer than a bitter, miserable old coot. Because that's mostly what your post comes across like.

Comment Re:Meanwhile... (Score 1) 276

Or is the difference that a streaming viewer isn't sending pieces to other viewers and you believe that watching it illegally is less criminal than watching it and distributing it?

From what I've understood of US law, yes. The exclusive rights of a copyright holder include reproduction (that is, storage to a medium) and distribution (sending it to someone else), but streaming doesn't use any of those rights. Copies that are purely transitory like buffers and caches do not count as storage. Note that it's more about the nature of the use than the actual technology, if you start a hundred copies of a piece of software from one shared network drive they may consider that as a hundred fixed copies even though they're only stored to RAM, that is still a gray area. But unless they've made any additions to the law recently I haven't caught, watching streamed content is legal at least with respect to copyright law. This logic would not apply to anything that violates any other laws though.

I know they here in Norway have created some kind of quasi-law to make watching streamed pirate copies illegal but I think it's mostly symbolic because the requirements is basically that you know it's a pirate copy and you're doing it intentionally. How is anyone to know what sites have licensed and what artists may or may not have made their stuff available for public distribution through any medium? And you're under no obligation to investigate. Basically it's a feelgood law that says anything on YouTube is okay, if you visit a pirate site you might be doing something wrong. I really doubt they'll manage to prove a single case ever though, particularly since they also have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who was streaming first, then what that streaming person thought. But hey, it's officially illegal here.

Comment Re:Ask Slashdot: (Score 1) 179

I'm European and I think the EU was nuts to recognize a "right to be forgotten". It should more properly be named the "right to silence", because what it does is compel other people's free speech to go away. Not by gagging it, but by making sure nobody finds it which is underhanded and wrong in more ways I can count. It's like saying you can have your soap box, as long as I can put a glass dome around you so nobody can listen. If there's anything actually illegal published like your medical records or sex photos there's reason to remove it immediately. The only time this "right" comes into play is when you want people to forget the past.

But people have every right to remember the past, they made some kind of quasi-legal theory that humans forget and computers remember forever that is just wrong. People write diaries, memoirs, old newspapers and all sorts of papers have been archived for a long time, computers only made it easy to find which they didn't like. And from that dislike they tried conjuring a right that completely lacks principle and has no place in a free democracy. It's like they took 1984's removal of unwanted elements from the past and turned it into law. If people should have their past cleared why not nations, should Germany ask to be unlinked to the Holocaust because it's no longer relevant for what Germany is like today?

We all have a past, whether someone else is willing to forget and forgive it should be up to them. Not to the person who wants their past buried, not to Google, not to the courts. You can present whatever whitewashed version of the past that you want. But you shouldn't be able to stop other people from coming with their side of the story. Even Wikipedia realized vanity pages that removed any information the subject didn't like was a bad idea, which should tell you that the EU really screwed up on this one. Hopefully the world won't let the EU forget.

Comment Re:Ask Slashdot: (Score 1) 179

The whole approach to this is screwed up. Why is Google in the middle of it?

Because Google is the international company they got some jurisdiction over unlike a US web host who would tell the EU to suck it. Because it's okay for countries to have different laws and if France wants some fucked up law for Google France that's their choice. But if they don't like that other countries on have different laws and that the French can access it over the Internet, they should just cut the wire. Not try to force their laws on anyone else.

Comment Re:Inventory Management Much? (Score 1) 315

Think of all the times patients are prescribed a medication but they cannot finish taking them (there are side affects, or the medicine isn't effective so another med is prescribed, etc, etc) and there are full pill bottles sitting around that could be used to treat other family members when they become ill. That would be.... efficient, would it not?

I think you intentionally wrote "other family members" rather than "others" because even you realize how much of a cluster fuck it would be to try re-issuing medicine in general and even then I'd be skeptical of anyone but my closest family. Apart from a few very generic prescription-free drugs that are probably kept/shared today, you expect people to keep stock of old medications for years on the off chance that someone else in close family will suffer from the same condition and need the exact same medication? That would be... stupid. It's a hoarder's mentality that maybe, someday, no matter how ridiculously pointless it seems now maybe one day it'll be good for something. If you don't need it, get rid of it.

Comment Re:asking wrong question (Score 1) 315

Once that bag and its contents is issued to her, it cannot be issued to someone else for use - it she were to hand the bag back, it would have to be destroyed, another GP wouldn't get it because the chain of "custody" has been broken. That means that my wife has to regularly do "stock" rotations on her drugs bag, which means old stock simply gets destroyed when its traded in for newer, longer life stuff.

Aren't you talking about two completely different things? If she has to rotate the stock in her bag, it's presumably for a reason that would mean no other GP could use it either. If she quits her job the week after being issued a new bag and they have to just throw it away then it's the custody rules that are absurd. Maybe what you were trying to say - but in that case you left out several important bits - is that towards the end of the useful life of your wife's doctor bag it could be returned and re-purposed to hospitals and/or patients under treatment that have a high turnaround and would use the drugs before they expire to reduce waste, but that the regulations prevent that. If not the TL;DR version is just "Think of drugs kept for emergencies that never see any use".

Comment Re:Original sealed container (Score 1) 315

In the UK, it is *incredibly* uncommon for you to get a pill bottle any more (...) I wouldn't know why you would get handed a generic pill bottle with individual pills in it these days, I haven't seen it happen in a couple decades.

Here in Norway I'd say pill bottles are still common for many medications, but it's never a generic bottle that anyone at the pharmacy creates or is reused. Typically they're bulk medicines that gets prescribed at different or on-demand rates to different people like pain killers and not "cures" that follow a particular schedule like antibiotics or to kill a fungal infection or anything like that, those have blister packs. Many people have their own pill box which has a grid of days and times that they load up once a week, but there obviously it doesn't stay long.

The pre-made alternative is usually custom made vacuum packs, like you get a strip of them and work your way from the top to bottom where everything is time stamped and the individual packs contain exactly those meds you're supposed to take then. This is particularly useful post-surgery etc. where people are often on a complicated step-down program. From what I've seen, very little is made child-proof these days. The thinking seems to be that if you're in an environment where that's a hazard, get a medicine cabinet/shrine and keep that locked.

Comment Re:911 fail. (Score 1) 59

Now just think of the harrowing situation someone had to go through to discover this flaw.

You mean like every person in need of emergency services before cell phones were invented? Not that I'm defending the company or want to turn back time, but this used to be the norm. Either crawl back to civilization where someone has a landline, pray that someone will report you missing and a search party or random stranger will find you or lay down and die. In fact quite a few people have died because of their over-reliance on being able to call help and you might say a lot of people that ought to have died have been saved despite their poor judgement. It's just that modern society has moved the goal posts to where you expect 911 to be available at your whim.

Comment Re:Sell! Sell! Sell! (Score 1) 112

What's more, sales and profit aren't necessarily the same thing; you can easily go bankrupt while profitable; you can also run a company that loses money for years on end if it has a cash cow.

Actually the former is usually a sign of gross management incompetence. If you're really profitable after paying interest on your debt you're in a liquidity problem because you got assets but not cash. There's usually some form of line of credit, sale and rental/lease-back agreement, joint venture merging your assets with their cash, offering new stock for cash or some other way to liquefy your assets for a price. If you go under it's usually because you're now turning a small profit but you're buried under a mountain of debt, which is not being genuinely profitable. If you're going to offer a taxi service then in the long run it has to pay for the car, you can't just ignore that and say you're making a profit driving it.

Comment Re:Masquerade (Score 3, Informative) 234

If you use KeePass you can configure it to not use so many confusing characters. Sometimes you run into places where the moron designer thought that only alphanumeric characters make valid password characters.

If you go outside ASCII and depend on the keyboard mapping there's been an annoyingly high number of bugs perpetrated by developers who only use the US/English keyboard. Particularly if you rely on this early in the boot process, like you want to unlock your BitLocker/TrueCrypt/LUKS partition with a password or make some kind of single-sign on solution that won't fail when one of the applications has been made by 'tards. And I say that as a Norwegian where our alphabet has 29 letters but for any technical purpose æøå doesn't exist in my book. It's not worth the pain of crappy US-centric software.

Comment Re:Sell! Sell! Sell! (Score 1) 112

That might be what he meant to say, but that's not what he said. He should have said, "we anticipate a reduction in cash as we make substantial investment in our in house programming. We expect a substantial return on this investment in the future."

What part of "Look, when we produce an amazing show like Stranger Things, that's a lot of capital up front, and then you get a payout over many years. " doesn't sound like just that?

Comment Re:But remember kids, the GPL is cancer! (Score 2) 29

Question: if the GPL "viral" or "cancerous", what do you call this, this son-of-Apache closed source freeware license that Jibe used for Remix OS ?

The "viral" nature referred to the need to release source code so it would be "non-contagious". If you want a better genetics-style analogy they're like a ship that left Open Source Island, settled on their own Proprietary Island and went extinct so whatever unique traits they had became dust. Other Proprietary Islands like macOS still thrive, but they only allow a few carefully selected people to return to Open Source Island. The Free Software Islands is like a federation, they'll let you travel to any island for what you seek as long as others can travel to your island for what they seek. And the inhabitants of Open Source Island are pissed because people from the Free Software Islands cherry pick people from Open Source Island, but they can't bring anyone back because they don't want to join the Free Software Islands. So far it's the Holy War with least bloodshed in history though.

Comment Re:From the NSS Institute (Score 3, Insightful) 75

Meh, truth is you're probably going to die roughly when it's time. I checked the stats here in Norway not that long ago and 70% of the population (from 80% to 10%) die between ages 75 and 95. Of the early deaths there are many due to suicide, traffic accidents and other non-medical conditions, more still due to excessive use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco with a lot of alcohol-induced stupidity leading up to the former. The rest mainly show up as "statistical" diseases, yes if you carry 10 kg too much all your life your heart will work slightly harder and you will give up the ghost a bit sooner. The question is what do you gain and what do you lose by always living the "right" life, if it's only chopping off a bit when you're old and frail anyway.

In fact, if you baseline the "invariant" death rate based on ages 1-45 (excluding 0-1 as a few are born with fatal defects) only about 4% die from things that would kill a young person, 96% of us at least partially die from old age. Old age and cancer. Old age and heart failure. Old age and respiratory failure. Old age and "harmless" diseases. We're getting constantly better at curing the specific ill that threaten an old person's life but we're not really addressing the accelerating frailty inherent in old age meaning that at some point even a stiff breeze will send you over the edge. And that curtain call is coming no matter how much clean living you do, though there's no reason to kill yourself prematurely there's also no point in thinking it'll give you more than a few years.

Slashdot Top Deals

As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.

Working...