Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
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:TANSTAAFL (Score 1) 181

The same laws?

Yes, exactly the same laws. If you think the system is loaded in favour of content creators, you are as free as anyone else to create new content of your own and benefit from that system if you can. Millions of people make their living this way and billions benefit from the results, so it's not as if this is some crazy niche rule, nor one law for the rich and another for everyone else.

Show me one single group of people who can work once and milk it forever.

Well, pretty much any investment-based business works this way. Landlords who rent out their properties are probably the most obvious example. However, I don't see how any of this is relevant to the matter at hand.

In practice, significant income from works under copyright rarely lasts for more than a relatively short time after the work is released, and of course even that is not guaranteed. Creating the potential for that income, and thus an incentive to create and distribute new work in the first place, is the main effect of having copyright laws. I suspect we would agree that the duration of copyright protection has probably been extended far more than it should have been, but the benefit of that extended protection is mostly illusory anyway.

Comment Question of bulk (Score 1) 171

True that landfills are pretty good ways to keep even dangerous trash long-term. But there are two good reasons to recycle some things anyway:

1) Bulk. Nice not have to have create a new giant clay pit, so try to fill up the existing one as slowly as possible. Especially CRT's are very bulky.

2) Easier access to rare materials. It's nice to be able to reuse various materials from electronics that are either somewhat rare or expensive to obtain. Of course the process of extraction when not done right creates a whole lot of really nasty pollution so you have to be careful making that choice. That is again why I prefer to pay more for a process that is probably not sending the electronics somewhere that will create even worse pollution than just dropping it into a landfill.

Comment Wrong again (Score 1) 171

You can throw it into the river yourself. Then you are guaranteed it is NOT recycled.

Part of what I do as a hobby is take disgusting trash out of rivers and throw it away in a more appropriate way...

If I saw a monitor in a river then in fact I would pull out the thing and take it to a recycler myself.

This is not out of any love of nature as it would not cause that much harm on its won just sitting there slowly decaying, purely aesthetics.

So even there you cannot be sure of what will happen to the monitor.

Comment They are more likely to do what I want if I pay (Score 2) 171

What do you think the recycler does with them?

I have no way of knowing.

I do know that if I put a monitor in the trash it's going into the landfill with a 100% probability.

If I take it to some some cheap or free place I know there's a pretty good chance it will go into a hellhole in some other country to decay and pollute everything.

If I take it to the place I pay a decent fee there's the highest probability that something as good as possible may be done with it. That probability will never be 100%. But pay paying a reasonable fee I maximize that probability.

Is your answer truly to just give up and not even try because you cannot know?

Comment Re: "Of course it can," says government (Score 1) 110

The comment I was responding to was regarding HAARP. And that's "except" FYI. :-) ECC is actually more reliable, for its problem domain, than a triple voting system. The probability that you would arrive at a valid ECC code for bad data due to multiple bit flips is much lower than than the probability of two out of three systems voting wrong. So, it is at least theoretically possible to design a computer system with data integrity throughout that exceeds that of a voting system.

Comment Re:"Of course it can," says government (Score 1) 110

Faraday cages are really good for RF, and I was writing about HAARP. The X rays that you get from a radiologist don't have the same energy level as cosmic rays. The best we can do about energetic cosmic rays is to make our equipment less susceptible, because you can never have enough shielding.

Comment Re:No feel (Score 2) 55

Self driving cars aren't going to be terribly good at measuring road feel and that moment when you feel grip suddenly let go and make the correction to stay on the road.

I wish I could see your face when I tell you that the technology to handle those situations has been mandatory in all cars (though not trucks) sold in the US since 2010. It's commonly known as ESP (electronic stability program) and there are a number of ways to actually effect changes in vehicle yaw once it is detected via accelerometer, like decelerating a slipping wheel (with the brakes) or accelerating an opposing wheel (e.g. with an electronic differential and the engine.) Slip can be detected as well (by the use of a second accelerometer) and one common response to slip is to engage traction control, which of course can induce yaw... which is then handled by the ESP.

This stuff began to become ubiquitous in high-end cars around 2000, but it was first brought to the street by Mitsubishi for the Lancer Evo IV and also used on the Galant VR4 and 3000GT VR4, under the name AYC. Even though it was the pioneer, it used the more complex and expensive electronic diff method, which is better than braking because it doesn't slow the vehicle.

All it would take to mess up AI racing is an oil slick or an animal or person or a tree falling or a part falling off another car or any number of other things for the AI to become overwhelmed.

The AI will deal with the oil slick better than a human driving a car without traction control and ESP, because it will effectively implement traction control and ESP. The vehicles already watch for obstacles. It's not that they won't ever make mistakes in these situations, but humans often do as well, so that's not a differentiating factor.

Comment Re:@Intel: Why no ECC for consumer-grade processor (Score 1) 110

Actually, wouldn't cosmic rays be capable of flipping bits even in ECC memory and processors, thereby making the whole ECC thing useless?

No, this is what ECC is for. If a bit is flipped, you can detect it. If you have enough parity bits, you can even detect which bit is flipped, and correct it on the fly. Computation occurs as normal and an error shows up in the syslog.

Slashdot Top Deals

Somebody's terminal is dropping bits. I found a pile of them over in the corner.