Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Lovely...with no pressing issues... (Score 1) 131

Actually, the Diefenbaker Conservatives have prior claim - the destruction (literally) of the Avro Arrow (the most advanced fighter of the time) at the behest of the US government because the Bomarc nuclear SAM missiles would supposedly make the Avro obsolete (funny how we still need jet fighters and bombers more than half a century later, isn't it).

I have to correct you on that there, as the CF-105 wasn't designed as a fighter -- it was designed as an interceptor. Interceptors (and in particular the CF-105) weren't designed for areal dogfighting with other fighter aircraft -- they were designed to take down larger aircraft such as bombers.

The purported reason for cancelling the Arrow project was that the world was moving away from nuclear capable bombers towards ICBMs. The threat that the CF-105 was designed for was Russian bombers flying over our northern coast, but the advancement of technology was making the need to fly bombers unnecessary, hence a straight-on interceptor was no longer necessary.

Indeed, today very few countries design or purchase straight-up Interceptor aircraft for their air defence. Fighter jets became advanced enough back in the 60's and 70's to take on the role of both fighter and interceptor as needed. A multi-role fighter-interceptor was a much better investment for a smaller country like ours.

You are also somewhat incorrect concerning the BOMARC missiles. While the US designed them to be nuclear capable, and the initial intention was to have Canada's inventory equipped with nuclear warheads, in the end Died the Chief caved into public pressure, and the nuclear option was scrapped. Eventually, of course, all of the BOMARC missiles were scrapped -- the mission they were intended for (destroying bombers flying towards the DEW line) evaporated in the face of ICBMs.

Today we face relative little danger from bombers from Russia flying over the north pole, and even should that happen we have modern advanced middles to take care of them. There really is no place for dedicated interceptors anymore, and there hasn't been for decades. Now none of that is to say that Diefenbaker was right to scrap the CF-105s -- the way the completed jets and all of their plans was dismantled/discarded/destroyed is a national disgrace. My family knows very well how this went down and the pain it caused -- my grandfather was a mechanic at AV Roe who worked on the Arrow project, and who became unemployed at the projects termination. His pride in the Arrow project and his regret at its destruction (and general anger towards Diefenbaker and his cabinet for causing it to happen) lasted until the last of his days.


Comment Re:Lots of sugar in a soda (Score 2) 143

Apart from bitter lemon, tonic water, birch beer and energy drinks containing taurine, i can't say I am familiar with any bitter sodas. Lots of them are highly acidic, but not bitter, which is a very distinct flavor from acidic.

Coca-Cola used to be bitter before it was carbonated and sugared, and actually contained coca extract, but that's a long time ago. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

Caffeine is quite bitter in raw form. Any soda that it is added to needs extra sugar to overcome the bitterness imparted by the caffeine.


Comment So when does a day start/end? (Score 1) 598

Currently, we switch from one day to another when 0000 local time passes.

However, if everyone starts using UTC, when does the day change? If everyone is using the same time clock, doesn't it make the most sense to do the same with the date increment?

And if you do that, somewhere in the world it's going to be November 8th when you start your workday, but somewhere in the middle will switch to November 9th. And that's just ugly.

I suppose you could de-coordinate the date increment from 0000 -- but if you're going to keep the date change coupled with the local concept of "midnight", why bother de-coupling 0000 from midnight in the first place?

Please put this back onto the bad idea pile for disposal. Thank-you.


Comment Re:No. (Score 1) 598

Thank you. So i should set my computer's BIOS to UTC and then offset by 8 hours(West coast USA) What about mobiles? They pretty much exclusively rely on network time Protocol (NTP) of some form. What about non-cellular tablets? How do they get time? From Google/Apple?

iOS and android mobiles use Unix time as their internal time representations, and Unix time is defined based on UTC. NTP also transmits time in UTC. This is actually the default for most OSs these days; last I checked Windows was the only remaining outlier in this regard (not sure if this has changed in the last few releases or not).

I'm not sure about Android, but on iOS there is an option to set time automatically via NTP against an Apple NTP server (


Comment Re:Here are some ways... (Score 1) 177

Running your own DNS server will protect you from most internet garbage.

Why is this? DNS just resolves IPs, do ISP DNS get hacked and redirected all the time?

While that could happen, I think it's more of an issue of it being possible for your DNS provider to log all queries, and then have the ability to filter on IP address o get a list of every website (or other named service) you've visited .


Comment Present in Webkit, but never Safari (Score 1) 104

AFAIK, while Webkit has an implementation of the Battery Status API, Apple always specifically disabled it in their Safari builds.

From what I can see, the only browsers affected by it currently are Firefox, Chrome, and Opera. Microsoft and Apple had enough wisdom to stay away from this API in their shipping browsers.


Comment Re: not at /. (Score 1) 158

I know they are there to protect investors from greedy governments. However, in the EU, we already have laws protecting your private property. In case the state requires your house the state must compensate you for that.

Yes, however ISDS doesn't just cover eminent domain seizures; it also protects investors from governments passing BS laws that disadvantage foreign imports in order to confer a special advantage to competing local interests.

Let's look at a (completely made up) example. Bombardier, a Canadian company, competes with Airbus, a French company in the aerospace field. Let's say that France wanted to confer a trade advantage to Airbus, and so decided to pass a law requiring X% of French-made parts in jets sold in France. The United States isn't party to CETA, and there is no tariff involved, so on the face of it, some politician might think this is legit. However, it would put Bombardier at a significant disadvantage -- the United States is Canada's largest trading partner, and importing parts made in France to Canada is going to cause the Canadian company to confer an added expense to ship parts to Canada that the French manufacturer doesn't have. In effect, it's a no-tarrif way to bypass a free trade agreement.

EU laws protecting property doesn't cover such a scenario. And that's why there are Investor protections built in -- to prevent such shenanigans.

The problem with such international courts is that they only value investors and they provide them extra protection beyond being treated equally. In case of leaked parts of TTIP and CETA, if a state would forbid carbon fueled engines by 2040/2050 (which we must do), this could become extremely expensive for a state, as any car manufacturer could sue them.

You can sue anybody for anything. Winning the suit is a completely different matter.

I've spent some time since yesterday reading the text of CETA, and Chapter 24 on Environmental Protection seems to apply in this case. Indeed, Article 24.2 seems to promote the type of protection you're talking about. Article 24.3 specifically states that parties have the right to regulate and encourage high levels of environmental protection. However, I will note that IANAL, and CETA is hugely long, thus there could be some details I've missed. Again, it seems that so long as such measures are applied equally and fairly, a scenario such as the one you've suggested would be completely permitted (Chapter 8, Section C).

Now, as the text does seem to indicate that the "parties" are Canada and the EU, so the treaty might require harmonization of such laws within the EU (as the above sections tend to talk about application to "the parties", and I'm not sure if individual nations within the EU are considered parties individually, or only as a collective). You'd need to take that up with a trade lawyer who knows more about this than I do. If that's the case I could see why some people have a problem with this, however isn't such harmonization the entire point of the EU in the first place?

BTW: another issue with this treaty is the inability to quit and it is valid indefinitely. This is rubbish. No one should ever sign such treaty. What if the next generation wants a different treaty or no treaty?

Any treaty can be quit. You don't need special wording added to an agreement to quit. Indeed, there are two ways you could conceptually quit CETA:

Leave the EU: as we are currently seeing with the "Brexit", you can get out of a treaty such as CETA by leaving the EU. The EU charter has text on how to exit the EU, and as CETA is between Canada and the EU, if you're not in the EU, you're not party to CETA.

Just announce you'll no longer recognize the treaty: or you can go the old-fashioned route and just ignore the treaty, and stop participating. Sure, this might trigger and old-fashioned trade war and cause a diplomatic crisis, however it has been done before. We actually have in this world something called the The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties" that covers this sort of thing. There would certainly be retaliation (and in the case of an individual EU country breaking the treaty, retaliation might not only come from Canada, but other EU countries) -- but if you're willing to pay the price, a country can walk out of any treaty at any time if they so desire.


Comment Re: not at /. (Score 1) 158

Globalization is neither good nor bad, but CETA is a bad deal. Especially when we want to battle resource limitations and climate change. A key problem with CETA is the so called protection for investors, which sounds like we do not have a proper legal system in Canada and the EU.

Investor protection isn't a bad thing to have in a trade deal per se. The main idea is supposed to be to prevent things like nationalization of an industry after a trading partner country's company(s) setup shop, or to pass laws that effectively bypass the agreement altogether by passing laws which directly disadvantages the trade partners industries, while favouring the local industries (i.e.: make widgets sold by the trading partner illegal, but permit locally made widgets). I would think that if you owned a Canadian company and decided to spend a ton of money to setup a factory in Belgium, only for a local government to expropriate your factory without permission or compensation (like Cuba did to various US companies in 1960), you would be pretty pissed off. Likewise (and probably more likely), you'd also be pretty cheesed if you spent a bunch of money and effort to import your widgets to (say) France, only for the French government to turn around and find some bullshit reason to make import and sell your product effectively impossible (i.e.: perhaps they decide suddenly post-agreement that all widgets must contain 100% raw goods refined in France, or that all workers building widgets must be fed a steady diet of baguettes made in Paris), you'd likewise be pretty pissed that the goalpost was moved in order to disadvantage you, while giving your competition within a trade partner nation an unfair advantage.

Ideally under such protections, changes to environmental and product safety laws shouldn't be a problem so long as they apply to everyone equally. That's the goal at least -- not having read CETA myself, I can't say how close it comes to the ideal. However, as a comparison here is a list of all current NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes, which makes for an interesting read on the types of disagreements the NAFTA ISDS-equivalent has dealt with.

Ultimately, I don't think that a clause in a free trade agreement that says "you'll treat our companies and goods as you do your own companies and goods" is a bad thing, and anyone who is automatically against the concept of an Investor-State Dispute Settlement system is wrong (there really isn't a point to a free trade system without one). I think that criticism of the implementation of an ISDS system is fair game (so long as the goal is to make the system fair and reasonable) -- but as there are a lot of ways legislation can be drafted to disadvantage foreign goods without tariffs, a free trade agreement without such a system in place is meaningless.

(And if you really can't stand having your local industries on a level footing with a foreign trading partner (and vice-versa), then you need to either negotiate an exemption for those industries when you (re)negotiate the agreement in the first place, or have the decency to back out of the agreement entirely. Disadvantaging your trading partners trade while expecting them to uphold their end of the agreement is a completely dick move that makes a mockery of trade agreements).


Comment Re:Allo? FB Messenger? (Score 1) 143

The competing product from Google and Facebook are both available on iOS and Android. Add to that the fact that Android owns so much more of the smart phone market than Apple.

Yes, however iMessage covers not only the iPhone, but every iPad, every iWatch, and every Mac as well. That's a pretty damn big ecosystem.


Comment Re:I'd guess it's the licensing fees (Score 2) 93

But that's just a guess. Of course that being said, Netflix is cutting back their shipping hubs. Those fuckers axed the one that was next day away from me and I have to use one a state over that takes 2 to 3 days each way.

It's worth noting that outside the US, Netflix doesn't run (and AFAIK has never run) any DVD shipping service. It's been streaming only. So in theory that shut weigh in Netflix US's favour somewhat.


Comment Re:Not happy at all for a "Pro" laptop from Apple. (Score 2) 316

Go shop for a new inkjet printer and tell me how many have USB-C connections on them vs. traditional USB right now.

I think you chose a poor example. Most printers that I'm aware of feature a USB Type-B connector on them, and don't come with any sort of cable.

USB Type-C is just a new USB connector. It's still signal compatible with existing USB devices. As virtually all inkjet printers don't come with a cable, you just ensure you buy a USB Type C to USB Type B cable to go with your printer, the same way you'd need to buy a USB Type C to USB Type A cable.


Comment Re:Hilarious (Score 1) 187

The problems that have been announced almost invariably revolve around the connectivity provided in the stadium, rather than the tablets themselves. This is an NFL problem.. iPad, Surface, Galaxy Tab, whatever.. not going to be different until the NFL forces teams and stadiums to provide adequate connectivity.

This is the NFL. They aren't exactly poor, so the simple solution would seem to be to use 4G enabled tablets. I can't imagine that cell service is so terrible from within stadiums (indeed, I'd expect cell companies to target stadiums for better reception. Nothing worse for your brand than having a venue that supports 40 000+ people who can't use their devices to tweet pics of themselves wearing a foam finger because your service sucks in a (typically) downtown stadium.


Comment Re:Anita Sarkeesian: Destroyer of Shareholder Valu (Score 1) 316

That's an interesting way of looking at it... But keep in mind that GP's argument about destroying shareholder value isn't just about a lower stock price due to a damaged brand, the actual value (assets) of the company may have decreased by a similar amount at the same time. Instead of paying $100 for an $80 item, you're now paying $50 for a $40 item. The price may be lower but it's still a crap buy.

But the numbers don't bear this out. These things are reported publicly, and can be easily looked up.

Like a lot of virtual services, Twitter doesn't have a ton of real value to start with. They don't have significant real estate holdings -- their latest earnings report lists $758 837 of "Property and Equipment, net", which is up from $699 502 YoY, and at an all-time high. So the hypothesis doesn't stand in light of the facts.

Twitter's whole value is in their Monthly Active Users (MAU), and that was up 1% during the last reported quarter. Twitters problem is that they don't have much of any real value (as mentioned above, they only have about 3/4 of a million in property and equipment), there isn't much growth potential, and advertising revenue is stagnant.

Making up stuff about SJWs being the reason why Twitter's valuation is down is just mental masturbation, and an attempt to paint "SJW's" as a societal ill. But Twitter's problems have nothing to do with Anita Sarkeesian, or five Conservative (in)Justice Warriors who have had their accounts banned for being abusing dicks. Hell, advertisers generally don't want to be associated with such people anyway -- it devalues their brand. The numbers -- which are publicly available -- bear this out.

The GP was being disingenuous, plain and simple.


Slashdot Top Deals

Once it hits the fan, the only rational choice is to sweep it up, package it, and sell it as fertilizer.