Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Hooray for common sense (Score 1) 366

Airplanes that are commercial scheduled air carriers are the only planes covered by the bill.
Commercial air transport is already regulated under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,
          specifically Clause 3 (related to regulation of Commerce among the several States).

See, you climbed all the way up there on your soap box, wrapped yourself with the flag, all for naught.

Comment Re:Whose phone is banned? (Score 1) 366


That's due to
1) you can't hear because of the whimpy speakers, and you assume the other party is also struggeling
2) no side tone, your speech isn't fed back to your ear.

With some good headphones this is solved. Any headset goes a long way to solving it, once you get
the idiots to realize there is not usually any sidetone on a cellphone.

Comment Re:nobodies phone is banned (Score 1) 366

Well, I agree that the 1st amendment is not at issue here... but could somebody please explain to me specifically which article or amendment to the constitution grants the U.S. Federal government authority to ban voice telephone calls on a private flight?

Follow the link to the actual legislation where they state

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,
          specifically Clause 3 (related to regulation of Commerce
          among the several States).

Comment Re:Whose phone is banned? (Score 1) 366

And does this new law ban calls from the airline owed phones? Well, thay ARE voice calls, and the airline phones are moving at 600 MPH so I guess that qualifies them as mobile divices

Phones installed on the plane are specifically exempted.
The price of those is so high that no one would yak on them for the whole flight.
And those do not support incoming calls.
And the ear piece is especially amplified so loud that the user does not feel compelled to shout.

Comment Re:Intentional? (Score 5, Insightful) 100

Direct intervention, or chilling effect?

This looks like an unfortunate situation where laziness, malice, and greed all point in the same direction... If the bulk of your Chinese language search results need to be delivered censored, it's presumably easier to just prune your Chinese language search archive rather than burning CPU time censoring on the fly. If Chinese officials are vexed at locals just hitting a proxy and getting uncensored search results, they probably won't exactly discourage you from adopting such a harmonious and efficient practice. And, if MS wants Bing to not get crushed, with a little help from periodic great-firewallings, making themselves helpful to local authorities is a logical move.

Comment Re:nobodies phone is banned (Score 1) 366

Instead of pontificating on non-related situations, why not read the whole bill here

Or, since it is so short, here it is:

HR 3676 IH

1st Session

H. R. 3676
To establish a prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications during passenger flights, and for other purposes.

December 9, 2013

Mr. SHUSTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

To establish a prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications during passenger flights, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

This Act may be cited as the `Prohibiting In-Flight Voice Communications on Mobile Wireless Devices Act of 2013'.

(a) In General- Subchapter I of chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 41725. Prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications

`(a) Prohibition- The Secretary of Transportation shall issue regulations--
`(1) to prohibit an individual on an aircraft from engaging in voice communications using a mobile communications device during a flight of that aircraft in scheduled passenger interstate or intrastate air transportation; and
`(2) that exempt from the prohibition described in paragraph (1) any--
`(A) member of the flight crew on duty on an aircraft;
`(B) flight attendant on duty on an aircraft; and
`(C) Federal law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity.
`(b) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions apply:
`(1) FLIGHT- The term `flight' means, with respect to an aircraft, the period beginning when the aircraft takes off and ending when the aircraft lands.
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `mobile communications device' means any portable wireless telecommunications equipment utilized for the transmission or reception of voice data.
`(B) LIMITATION- The term `mobile communications device' does not include a phone installed on an aircraft.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The analysis for chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 41724 the following:
`41725. Prohibition on certain cell phone voice communications.'.

Comment Re:Guarantee (Score 1) 716

"Programming without bugs is easy. It's just slow and expensive. so nobody wants it. It's cheaper and easier to write bad code and ship it, absorbing backlash, than to build it right in the first place."

Tell me. I am currently involved in a project that involves parsing text from thousands of pages written by different people. And it's a horrendous task. Even though the pages are somewhat standardized, there are variants of wording, variants of spelling, typographical errors (those are particularly bad to deal with), etc.

Trying to create bug-free methods for parsing those into their constituent parts is a difficult job indeed. I did not realize when I took the job just how NON-conforming all these different pages are. After all, they're in a "standardized" format. Haha.

I'm sticking with the job, though, because if I can pull it off, it might also pay off. But bug-free is just impossible in this case (unless you're IBM, maybe... but even Watson made mistakes). The best I have managed is to get most of them right, and flag the rest as needing human intervention. As long as I can keep the latter to a minimum, it will be okay. But none? Not a chance.

Comment Re:Hacker??!! (Score 4, Informative) 248

In the absence of any keep out signs, (there weren't any), even in France, public items are for free for public consumption.

The only strawman around here is you, and you seem to have most of it in your head.
This guy did nothing wrong. The documents were freely available on the web. There was no security on the site, and no copyright on the documents.

As he states on TFA:

Through a Google search which strictly did not have anything to do with ANSES or with public health, I found myself in the ANSES extranet. Simply by clicking on a search result.

First observation: there are a lot of documents freely available here.
Second observation: they speak about public health.
Third observation: L’ANSES is a public establishment.
Question: Is it that this ought to be public?
Response: (too) obvious at the time: yes.

And he was acquitted!!! But an embarrassed agency appealed..

Comment Re:Excellent! (Score 1) 665

World currency can change as soon as the world bank decides to select a different standard. It'll cause some chaos in the financial markets, but the US can't hold the world hostage if push comes to shove.

The consequences of US defaulting on all its debt would be far more than "some chaos in the financial markets". It would kill many smaller economies outright, and provoke a massive crisis in bigger ones that would take many years to recover from.

The military aspect is troublesome, but the vaunted American military can't take on the whole world.

It doesn't have to take onto the whole world and win to make a huge mess. It just has to try. Germans couldn't even take on the whole Europe, but they still killed millions and ruined many countries while trying.

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 359

12 divides evenly by 2,3,4,6 and 60 is divisible by just about every integer in the book.

In common parlance, "round" generally means divisible by 10.

In any case, I agree with your point that 12 is a better base for a number system. But, for better or worse, we ended up using base-10 to write down our numbers. So long as we do so, it makes sense to align our units of measurement with that, so that operations on them are more naturally represented. If this is to change, we need to change both parts of it - the units and the numbering system. Even then, it would be nice to keep the entire arrangement of metric where various units are easy to convert from and to each other without weird coefficients that need to be apply when going from volume to mass etc, as it is in Imperial. Basically, it would be same as SI, but redefine centi- to be 12, kilo- to be 12^3 etc.

It's as ridiculous as setting your measurement system as a lump of metal instead of an abstract unit.

Well, it's not like Imperial is any better in that regard, as it defines pound in terms of kilogram. Ultimately, it boils down to having a meaningful physical definition. Which we can come up with, like setting it to be the weight of N molecules of some specific element - but we can't measure it to the same accuracy that we can measure the "lump of metal" in question (or at least we couldn't until very recently, which is why it's now being reviewed).

Comment Re:Hacker??!! (Score 5, Interesting) 248

Just because you CAN do something, it doesn't mean it's okay to do it. This creates a horrible survival-of-the-fittest arms race techno-bureaucracy where values are absent.

In this case, when a PUBLIC agency violates their own security protocol, and turns over all its internal documents to the internet, it means EXACTLY that it is OK to do so.

Your analogy of walking into an unlocked office fails the sniff test. (not to mention the stupid analogy test).

He did not break. He did not illegally enter. There was no door. He didn't deprive them of anything. The documents might as well have been stacked neatly in the public park, with signs and arrows pointing to the juicy bits.

The government agency already published the documents.

Comment It's just a symptom for a lack of respect (Score 1) 716

Since it's such a stupid analogy it's just a symptom for a lack of respect and is an obvious attempt to unfairly reduce the conditions of an employee. Depending on how it's done it may come under the category of bullying.
What to do about that lack of respect is the difficult choice. Put up with it, convince the supervisor that you should not be treated with such a lack of respect, escalate to higher management, or arrange matters so you no longer have that supervisor (transfer or quit) - all have downsides.

Slashdot Top Deals

If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -- Stanley Garn