Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Why only in EU? (Score 1) 54

There's a lot more to it than that. You have to consider that each country will have different laws, different economic situations, etc. And of course the distributors want to abuse all of those differences to the maximum ability they can in order to retain control and/or increase profit.

As a Canadian constantly being taunted by Netflix' library, I can tell you that I don't especially like geoblocking.. but to say that it doesn't apply in the digital world is a bit silly. There are many forces beyond simple transportation that can affect sales in local contexts.

Comment Re:Most of the web really sucks (Score 1) 325

In some cases, yes. If I'm reading a page like say, Slashdot, I'd much rather have the CSS and text come through first and the logos and ad images and crap are welcome to take forever if they so desire.

But on the other hand, if you're looking at say imgur then things are a bit more dicey. The user wants the main picture to show up first, but the browser automatically determining which image is the "main" picture and which are the "see also's", without a-priori knowledge of the imgur website layout becomes quite a bit more of a challenge, and the text is nearly irrelevant in most cases on imgur.

Overall, its a very hard problem and no matter what you do, someone somewhere will develop a website that breaks the heuristics. Which is why browser developers just say "ehh screw it not worth our time."

I'd like to suggest that adding a tag that page developers could use to indicate which images/other loads are priority would be good.. but I can almost guarantee that the ads would immediately all be given top priority and we'd end up with the exact opposite of what users want.

Comment Re:Something is missing (Score 1) 357

I don't know about seatbelts but your other points aren't all THAT relevant regardless of the age of the vehicle:

- Aerodynamics is just never going to be great when you have a giant square box, and they don't want to make it not-square because that would impact their ability to stack (mostly square/rectangular) boxes inside. I guess they could put a spoiler on the roof of the cab to try and route some of the wind around the flat face of the cube but you're not likely to ever see significant smooth curves on a delivery truck.

- Doors aren't really necessary either, beyond the 2 for the cab (driver and passenger) and the main storage door. They'll be packing those boxes front-to-back in the first place according to the delivery schedule, so the driver would rarely if ever be in a position where they have to dig a package out from in front of other packages.

Comment Re:Something is missing (Score 1) 357

The video at the end.. doesn't describe it nearly as well as TFS owuld have you believe, but the missing parts are:

a) It doesn't really apply to residential / low-delivery roads.

b) If they need to do deliveries on both sides of a road, they'll route two trucks down that road -- one in either direction -- rather than having a single truck effectively turn around and go back down the same road twice (or maybe it will be the same truck after doing a bunch of right-turn-only deliveries at the far end of the road before coming back.. that sort of thing.)

So its not like the trucks are making 3 rights to circle the block, they're routing multiple trucks in smart ways to cover the same drop points while avoiding as many lefts as possible, along with some relatively sane limits (if there's only one drop in a 10 mile radius, that particular truck will just have to make a left turn if needed.)

Essentially, its a fairly regular routing algorithm but puts a much heavier weight on left turns in order to minimize them (but won't eliminate them entirely if the cost of making a left is still lower than the cost of alternative plans.)

Comment Re:look, it's simple. (Score 1) 56

Absolutely. But in this case its a win-win -- MS gets to advertise stronger privacy guarantees (and doesn't have to spend as much time/effort/money responding to government requests,) their customers get to rest a tiny bit easy knowing that at least they'll be notified when their privacy is breached. And even society as a whole gets to benefit as it would provide precedent for other large data storage and collection providers to also tell the government to piss off.

The only one who doesn't benefit here is the government themselves. They'll have to go back to doing crazy things like getting warrants and allowing for due process when going after people (or at least, they would in this particular circumstance.)

Certainly there are plenty of times when companies screw their customers in pursuit of profit. But sometimes the cards align and what's best for profit also happens to be best for consumers.

Comment Re:The more important part not mentioned... (Score 1) 56

Probably because the first has been slapped around so much in recent times that it has barely a wisp of its intent left in tact.

Now if MS could somehow wrap this around the second amendment, it would be a surefire case. Because apparently we don't care about speech or privacy or many other rights, but damned if we'll let them take away our ability to put holes in things!

Comment Re:Openess leads to viruses (Score 1) 53

Phew. Good thing https://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/apple-scrambles-after-40-malicious-xcodeghost-apps-haunt-app-store/ never happened. Or http://www.cultofmac.com/241463/researchers-sneak-malicious-ios-app-into-the-app-store-undetected/ that. Or even http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-china-malware-idUSKCN0RK0ZB20150921 that (which is a precursor to the first link I posted, so they obviously aren't even very good at fixing the problems when they show up!)

But hey we live in a world of alternative facts, so believe whatever you want I guess. Truth is irrelevant in our brave new world.

Comment Re:Why the comment from the fake news outlet? (Score 2) 217

Hilary was predictable. I'm not so sure about safe.

Trump's election was because he was unpredictable. When the predictable option is bad, the unpredictable one is at least a ray of hope.

Of course he's now doing everything he can to smash that hope, but it was there long enough to get him into office.

Comment Re:New printer (Score 1) 159

This is so absurdly wrong its almost funny. That carbon you're talking about is already "sequestered" in the trees you're cutting down -- its not in the atmosphere!

And the tree you just cut down is now no longer pulling any more carbon out of the atmosphere.

Never mind things like the equipment needed to cut down, transport, mash and reconsistute the wood into paper all requires fuel, the majority of which is going to be carbon-based, so there's a big subtraction from your equation (that may even go negative I don't have numbers.)

You also assume that the paper we use comes from replanted trees. Which is certainly getting more common but I wouldn't want to bank on it being universally true to any extent.

Its like saying you should evaporate your town's water supply in order to increase the rainfall for the year. Yes, it may well do that but chances are it won't be anywhere close to sufficient to replenish the waste, and what you're left with is in a far less convenient form to boot. Much better to just manage the resource properly in the first place.

Comment Re:FOIA joke (Score 2) 245

Probably almost as hard as responding to it once. They would have to re-do the search in case there are new documents available, and probably review previously-released documents as well in case the redacting needed to be changed (which theoretically should only go in one directly -- removing redacts -- but I seem to recall them being occasionally caught releasing later copies of documents that were more strongly redacted than previous copies, though its hard to necessarily claim its done maliciously when it could simply be two separate people doing the redacting and having differing opinions on what should be hidden.)

Comment Re:Very common legal requirement (Score 1) 245

In the same sense that a door lock doesn't ACTUALLY mean much. A dedicated criminal will still manage to find a way into your home, but it goes a long way to preventing crimes of convenience.

Sure your signature probably won't stand up against a professional forger, but for the vast majority of cases it really doesn't have to. In the worst case scenario, if you fall victim to a forgery (or if you're trying to get out of a deal by claiming the signature isn't yours) then there's always the court room available to sort the situation out.

Comment Re:Where's the legal content? (Score 1) 73

Well I'm necroing a half-week-old conversation, but on the off chance that someone bothers reading it anyway, I would like to posit that this is all absolutely irrelevant:

1) As far as I know, a work entering the public domain has no direct requirement for your specific copy to be suddenly unlocked. I'm pretty sure it doesn't even require the works' owner to release it at all. Only that they can't sue you for infringement if you do manage to copy it. That's probably an unpopular viewpoint around here, but I'm reasonably sure that its a correct one.

2) Even if we decide to force companies to release and/or unlock their works, we still have the issue that copyright is currently nearly a century long and they're still pushing to extend terms further. It doesn't really matter what happens when software enters the public domain if no software is ever given the opportunity to do so.

3) And finally, with software specifically, there's the question of what exactly constitutes "the work": The binaries or the source? Specifically, if we decide that the source constitutes the work (and assuming we're discussing closed-source software obviously,) then the entire question is once again moot since its never released publicly and thus will never have the opportunity to enter the public domain.

As for your last phrase: DRM schemes and walled garden store fronts are most definitely not the same thing. Steam doesn't do anything toward ending general-purpose computing. Nor does DVD or Bluray DRM. And conversely, there's nothing in the concept of a walled garden store that requires you to lock your program behind DRM (whether any particular store front does or not is another question.)

Certainly the producers of media, including software, are doing their damnedest to try and claw back control using both technologies, but beyond the coincidence of them both existing and being used for similar goals at the same point in history there's little connecting the two from a technology standpoint. In other words, its the culture rather than the code that's the problem here.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.

Working...