Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment sorry, you can siphon a gas (Score 4, Interesting) 360

> As some liquid pulls out and follows the force of gravity; a suction is created, and water molecules that are adhering follow the flow this creates.

That fact that you can siphon a gas shows that "molecules adhering" has nothing to do with it. A fun way to see this for yourself is to put some dry ice in water, then siphon off the CO2. The cold CO2 isn't MUCH heavier than air, so the siphon doesn't flow very fast, but it does flow.

Gravity pulls the fluid out of the low side, creating low pressure in the tube. The higher atmospheric pressure then pushes fluid into that low-pressure tube from the upper reservoir.

> After pressure is reduced by 80%; the substance ceases to be a proper liquid -- in essence, it loses the properties of water.

Which doesn't matter. Try the dry ice CO2 experiment to see for yourself.

Comment No. Try it with no air pressure, like TFA did (Score 1) 360

> Under standard conditions, you can get a column about 32 feet long

Where "standard conditions" means standard AIR PRESSURE and temperature. At standard pressure it works fine. If pressure is reduced by 80%, it stops working at all. See the article for details.

Comment have you read any of them. S215, example:must spam (Score 1) 248

Have you read any of the bills, or are you just guessing? The bills are only 5-10 pages each , so you CAN read them and get a clue.

  S215, for example, specifically requires ISPs to accept and process spam. Most spam comes from a fairly small number of sources, people who send out thousands of spam messages per minute. As they move around a little bit, competent admins block those sources. There's no reason to accept connections from these spam factories - they have gigabit connections pumping out spam and nothing but spam. Under S215, ISPs would have to accept that spam because it says spam filters must be per-recipient. It requires that the ISP accept the connections, process the email to see what the rcpt address is, look to see if the user exists (a one in a million chance for some spammers who generate random addresses like 74jdbk84hfdh6@domain.com), etc.

Others require that the ISP pass all legal content. If you're at all familiar with CAN-SPAM, you may know that's ridiculous - 90+% of spam is legal.

Comment there's only room for one wire? (Score 1) 410

There's only space for one wire to come to your house? Weird. I have quite a few wires connecting to my house.

It's "inefficient" to have two wires to the same house - in EXACTLY the same way that it's inefficient to have two towers covering the same area. Yet, with that inefficiency comes choice and competition. I can, and have, told one cell company to screw off when they didn't provide the best service.

Comment That would be bad if true, but double false (Score 1) 410

C> ) Allowing a non-profit to bypass all donation limits that are put on any single individual;

That's doubly false. First, individuals have GREATER freedom to donate. Individuals can donate as much as they want to a super PAC Corporations cannot donate to super PACS. They can _form_ a super PAC, but they can't donate any corporate money to it.

Comment you understate your (correct) point (Score 1) 410

The drop in rates was a lot more than 10 to 4. Just a few years before it was 10, it was 43. That's about $2.12 / minute in today's money. That 43 ($2) rate was of course set by regulators. Immediately upon deregulation, the rates dropped to 10, a 75% decrease in rates. As you pointed out, it didn't take long to hit 4. That's a price cut of over 90%.

What's strange is that you point to the huge win for consumers when long distance was DEregulated, and hold that up as a reason to REGULATE isps. You're saying "removing regulation worked great, so let's add new regulation of a similar industry". You've shown why regulation of long distance was a huge mistake - it caused consumers to pay ten times as much as the unregulated rate. So why repeat the mistake with ISPs? You want to pay $500 / month for your internet service?

Comment interesting point, thanks (Score 1) 410

> If I belonged to a union, why should they? Should my Church speak /influence for me? And, frankly, it is the influence part that always comes into play.

That's an interesting point. Thanks. For me, I'm glad I and others can join together and support the EFF in speaking on our behalf on specific issues. You asked why. They can research the details of issues and write more effective, specific proposals, etc far better than each of us can do alone. I happen to think we're better off having subject matter experts negotiating these things, while we support the experts who represent our views. So that's one reason why. The major reason why is because the first amendment says so. It doesn't say "freedom of speech and of the press, unless two people write together. "

Comment How do you write a law that allows blocking spam? (Score 1) 248

I'm all for network neutrality as a CONCEPT. As someone who has been running servers for decades I don't see how Washington can make a LAW requiring network neutrality that doesn't blow up in our faces.

An ISP gets hundreds of thousands of connection attempts from known email spammers every day. The volume of other attacks can be measured in how many hit you per minute. You absolutely MUST block and prioritize traffic based on its origin in order to have any hope of running a usable network. If Washington says you can't block or slow traffic based on the source and other attributes, email pretty much stops working. Worms will spread much faster. It becomes illegal to protect yourself or your customers from even the simplest of DOS attacks. In general, things would just get real nasty real fast. I'd need to see a proposal that looks like it might possibly work before I could support a law on the issue.

Though I know what some of the unintended consequences would be, there are always others that we don't foresee - every law causes some problem, so we should be careful about passing new federal laws.

Secondly, what is the motivation for this? We're afraid of something that COULD happen. We come up with hypothetical scenarios, but none of this is real - it hasn't happened. If it does happen, do we not already have laws about "unfair competition", "tortious interference", etc? Doesn't it make more sense to be alert, be watchful for any real problems, and see if our existing laws about unfair competition and such work as needed?

Why such a rush to pass laws that we know will cause problems, to stop a possible problem that doesn't yet exist?

Comment Suggestion: clue first, argue second (Score 0) 101

Clearly you haven't followed ANY of the relevant discussion. We're not putting back 98% of the features that are being removed. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Security for BSD is more important than support for FIPS or HP. If you want HP support, use OpenSSL or gnuTLS. LibreSSL will be simple and clean - screw features.

A suggestion - get a clue what you're talking about before arguing about it. The discussion is on the list. Read it - or stfu when people who HAVE read it ate talking.

Comment interesting. Clear and refreshingly honest (Score 1) 410

> I'm not sure that Dice and the ACLU work together.

I guess was was unclear. I was saying the ACLU (inc.) is people working together toward common goals, the FSF is people working together, Dice is a group of people working together.

> Personally, I don't think any corporation should be able to talk politics. Dice, ACLU, GE, BSA, FSF, Labor union, trade union, etc.
> . . .

> So, me, I want that whole group to go stone cold silent.

That's very interesting, refreshingly clear and intellectually honest. The old analogy is that it's unfair that some people can see and some people are blind, and the left's solution is to remove everyone's eyes. You're unusual in how clear and honest you are that you do in fact want to do essentially that. Thanks.

  > People, no.

Just no GROUP protests, right? YOU can express your opinion and I can express mine, but if you and I get together and make video, that should be illegal. Interesting, truly.

I really appreciate your viewpoint, and how you state it clearly, boldly, without pretending that the implications are anything but what they are. That takes courage.

Comment true. Also unrelated to deep vs shallow (Score 1) 113

I agree quality code is important. I'm glad software architecture is now recognized as an engineering discipline, so you can choose to have a qualified Professional Engineer lead or review a software project.

All of which is largely a separate issue from the observation that with enough people looking at a problem, the solution will be shallow - obvious to someone.

Comment worked great for cell phones (Score 1) 410

Yep. Just like the last mile for cell phones is a natural monopoly - why have duplicate towers serving the same area?

I'm glad I get unlimited everything for $30 from Boost Mobile, with no contract, because Washington bureaucrats decreed that was the proper monthly rate. Oh, that wasn't decreed by government? You say that government decreed that my 64k landline, running on copper that's been there for 30 years, must cost MORE than my 4G wireless service? Well that's kinda stupid.

Comment "like phone" "massive competition". Smoking someth (Score 1) 410

> If the FCC had decided to treat the net like a phone, we would have massive competition, lower prices, and better service.

Yep, common carrier phone systems (landlines) have so much competition, and service has improved so much in the last 100 years. I want some of what you're smoking.

Comment So it should be illegal for Dice to run this story (Score 1) 410

The FEC's position in CU was that because the people of Dice and the ACLU work together as a corporation, they can't talk about political issues. Had the FEC won, Dice couldn't run this story without FEC approval because Dice is corporation, they spend money running the site, and it touches on a political issue.

It IS unfortunate that with free speech, some people and organizations can get a bigger megaphone than others. Is silencing everyone really the solution? The CU ruling is what allows the ACLU and the FSF to continue to comment on political issues. Do you really want to silence them, in order to silence those who disagree with them?

I propose an alternative. I propose that ACLU Inc be allowed to make their case publicly, the BSA can make theirs, and the FSF can say what they want to say. Then, you and I, the voters, can decide who we agree with after hearing them.

Slashdot Top Deals

If I have not seen so far it is because I stood in giant's footsteps.

Working...