Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:So they are doing what? (Score 1) 509

I consider it to be more like the First Amendment argument that is popular: you can say what you want but you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

What if the theater is actually on fire?

The actual argument was "[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." (emphasis is mine).

Please read up the history of that argument before repeating it because it muddies everyone's understanding of the 1st Amendment when repeated incorrectly.

Professor Thane Rosenbaum Deceptively Carries On The Tradition of Censorship-Cheerleading

Comment Re:Flight recorder (Score 1) 491

CVRs on those aircraft are 2 hours, not 30 minutes.

What I want to know, is why my phone (the smallest model made) can hold 1100 hours of compressed audio ... but these aircraft using NAND don't hold more than 2 hours of uncompressed audio (you don't want any quality sacrifices or artifacts from compression to screw up your analysis later) in a redundant array ...

Someones going to tell me that for the 30-40k those black boxes cost ... they can't put some actual storage space in the fucking things?

Probably because your phone isn’t reliable when exposed to 3,400g impact loads, or burning jet fuel, or a corrosive high pressure deep sea environment? Then again maybe you have one of those 'rugged' phones.

Comment Re:Keep the phone ban (Score 4, Informative) 221

Given that aircraft fly around in a veritable EM soup (AM, FM, VHF transmission towers, the spark gaps of an angry god, etc.), I would hope that every phone on the plane draining its battery in a coordinated RF scream would be a survivable event. Whether all the chatter raises the noise floor or introduces errors into sensitive measurements is a subtler but more likely issue.

What is outside the airplane is the least of the problems. A large commercial plane has racks of electronic equipment, dozens of radios, weather radar, flight displays, in-flight entertainment systems, power generation and distribution systems, pumps, servos,...etc.

All of those are potential sources of EMI that need to work together as a system. The only reason a cell phone is considered 'risky' is because it un-tested. There is nothing unique about cell phone electronics from an avionics point of view. Similar, and more powerful, systems are already integrated into the airframe.

Comment Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score 1) 208

But the analogy doesn't work, because the government is limited by a different set of laws than a private company. The government cannot censor the speech of an employee, not because of employer-employee relationship, but because of the limits placed on government in general. Therefore, it is important determine if the government, in general, has over stepped its bounds. Ken White had a good write up last month about the relationship of University Professors and the State: Pophat

Comment Re:Gee, he's got my vote (Score 1) 109

The politician you know is a felon is more honest than the one who claims not to be.

There is a lot of truth in this. Look at his behavior and personality. How is he any different than any other politician that has been exposed for wrong doing? Positions of power attract similar personalities, and the fact that Kim would direct his resources towards a political position implies he is cut from the same cloth as every other politician out there.

The shocking part is not Kim running for office, it is that people like Kim are already there.

Comment Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll (Score 1) 358

Or hanging out in a Moscow airport waiting for the President to offer the appropriate bribe to Vladimir Putin to have your ass sent back to the United States for the crime of causing the Surveillance State a little trouble.

A few year ago I would have been inclined to agree, but in this case it is Russia that is worried about returning a 'political asylum seeker' to their country of origin which would likely result in their torture and death. Authentic or not in this case Russia may actually be the morally higher ground. Another sad day for the US.

Comment Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy? (Score 1) 262

Just because you are in public doesn't mean your location should be known by all parties with access to a database.

I think the unreasonable part is storing of the data. I see this technology very similar to a 'speed trap', where passing cars are locally affected. Generally speaking 'speed traps' are accepted as a reasonable police practice. However, if in addition to checking speed the police also uniquely identified each vehicle and then stored the date, time, location, speed...etc, the action would be significantly more intrusive if not unlawful.

Comment Re:Anti-reflective with fingerprints? (Score 1) 175

You don't 'lose' the light. When light waves strike the AR coating some of the light is immediately reflected towards your eye. While the remaining light passes through the AR coating and is then reflected off a secondary surface towards your eye. However, as it passes through the AR coating the phase of the light is changed so that it 'destructively interferes' with the reflected light that did not pass through the AR coating, and therefore you see the reflection at a lower 'intensity'.

The goal is to get the 'intensity' of the reflected light well below the 'intensity' of the light from the device back-light. The greater the difference between these 'intensities' (e.g. the higher the back-light output with respect to the reflected light) the greater the 'sunlight readability'.

Comment Re:Anti-reflective with fingerprints? (Score 1) 175

AR coatings in 'ruggedized' military and avionic displays is very common, the coatings are durable. Likewise, when used on a touchscreen an oleophobic (repels oil) coating can be used on top of the AR coating to minimize smudges and finger prints.

Also, it should be kept in mind that the cover-glass is only accounts for the 'first' reflection in the 'lamination stackup'. In order for an anti-reflection technology to work all subsequent air gaps need to be removed or similarly index matched to prevent secondary reflections. So while this is a step in the right direction for 'sunlight readability', the entire laminated assembly has to be optimized concurrently.

Comment Re:The theater is dead. (Score 1) 924

You're 50-60-70in TV with 5.1 surround isn't the same quality is what the theaters have. Sure maybe so really cheapo theaters but the standard AMC theaters have over a dozen channels along the sides alone. And yes watching a movie on a 50ft wide screen is considerably different than on a TV.

Yes, watching on a 50ft screen is different, but not necessarily better. If someone just wants to watch a movie on the biggest screen possible, then great go to the theater or get a projector. But the brightness, contrast ratio, and color reproduction on the big screen is sub-par compared to a modern HDTV. It is these characteristics, not size, that are most important for a clear and crisp image.

Comment Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score 1) 955


I am standing up for a Hero was forced into a position where he had to chose between upholding the constitution (the first part of his oath) or following orders (another part of his oath). If he didn't blow the whistle, he would still be violating his oath.

The problem is in assuming that legality implies legitimacy. Just because a law is passed doesn't make it legitimate. How, can one be in a position of either up holding the Constitution or the 'law'? When in conflict, one must be correct, and the other illegitimate. Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land it's authority must supersede the other law, otherwise there is no limit to the authority and power of government.

Comment Re:Waiting for the nanny statists (Score 1) 521

I just told you we don't need to be reminded that you're paranoid. Christ

Take a step back from your opinion and re-read the GP post.

Tyranny is already here. It is just masked in Bureaucracy. All you need to know is that the Powers that be, have already targeted "enemies of the state", simply because they oppose the Bureaucracy's over reaching power.

The files for the original 3D printed gun by Defense Distributed were order to be taken down by the State Department. Note that is not known by the State Department if the files violate ITAR export laws, but since they were unsure they wanted Defense Distributed to assume their action was illegal. In other words any action not explitcly granted by State should be assumed to be illegal. That is not a how a free society operates. Tyranny is not 'all or nothing', it can be a slow corrosive process.

Comment Re:Something is wrong (Score 1) 311

Well, anything above $5.25 million. Anything below that is *tax free*. That's a pretty sweet deal, considering how much tax you'd pay if you had to actually work for that money.

Sweet deal? You do know that inheritance involves someone dying, often a close family member. Also, do you realize that the deceased person already payed tax on the sum of money, so it not exactly tax free?

As machines get more efficient, the value of human labor is diluted.

Not it doesn't, only certain types of labor become less profitable, others become more profitable. I think this would be a good place for a 'horse and buggy' analogy from an RIAA related story?

The free market value of some forms of labor has already fallen below what people need to live with dignity.

What does dignity have to do with anything? There is no economic system that protects dignity, dignity is a personal choice, and only in a economic system that protects personal choice can one choose how to live with dignity (if they even care about it).

A cap on income and wealth might be a good thing, but I think it is more important to set a floor that no one is allowed to fall beneath.

Who decides what the upper and lower limits will be? How do they ensure that beneficial activities such at spending $28 billion in charitable contribution is persevered? How do they know that once the current upper limit economic activities have been eliminated there will remain enough economic activity to support those who cannot or choose not to be productive? How do they wade there the infinite number of needs and wants with the unlimited number of outcomes to determine what economic activities people can or cannot undertake?

Comment Re:2nd Amendment Question (Score 1) 551

The second amendment (since thats what the thread is labeled) is to protect us from the government. as such having a weapon equal to our government is indeed perfectly acceptable to me.

I agree with you on this statement, but disagree that this applies to military weaponry. I believe 'firearm parity' needs to maintained with local and federal law enforcement only. I don't believe that military hardware is applicable to the 2nd Amendment because 1) it is illegal to use the military for federal/local law enforcement, 2) when the 2nd Amendment was ratified there was no desire for a permanent standing military, proven by the fact the Continental Army was disbanded after the Revolutionary War. That fact that we now have a standing army in a time of 'peace', means we now have to live with the associated risks.

I could however see a case to made for a person being allowed to develop or build any weapon themselves for personal use on private land.

Comment Re:Good to know (Score 2) 200

Yelling fire in a theater is a bad thing. It's the application of that to "show" that passing out a communist flier should be illegal because it's like yelling fire in a theater. Yelling fire in a theater is illegal, so not all speech is always protected. Now that we are in agreement that we don't have "free speech" in the USA. The follow up question is "where do we draw the line?"

Fire in a theater helps us understand this and leads to discussion on it.

Actually it doesn't help because more often than not it is misquoted. The actual quote is:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

The emphasis is mine. Falsely shouting fire in order to create a panic is illegal, or rather the person making the speech is accountable of the resulting harm. However, shouting fire in a crowded movie that is actually on fire is not illegal, as most reasonable people would agree that there is a moral responsibility to letting others know of imminent danger.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Maintain an awareness for contribution -- to your schedule, your project, our company." -- A Group of Employees