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:Story's Not Over (Score 2) 195

If I understand this correctly, Akamai threw Krebs out because Akamai could not handle the DDS. This means I'm never sending any business to Akamai because they can't handle it properly. But it doesn't mean Krebs is off the air for long.

For example, I bet Cloudflare would take him on. They've differentiated themselves on the ability to handle DDS.

There's also Google's Project Shield, which is free for journalists.

Comment Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena? (Score 1) 49

Why does it boggle the mind? Most of the Android revenue is licensing. Google doesn't have a lot of cost when it comes to licensing.

I think most of Android's revenue is from the Play store, not licensing. In fact, I don't think Google charges anything for the Google apps, and it really couldn't charge anything for Android, since it's open source.

Comment Re:Think about it (Score 2) 279

It's wishful thinking to suppose that a more technically advanced civilization would be more peaceful and tolerant.

I don't think so, for two reasons.

The first is that our own history is one of increasing peace and tolerance. If you don't believe this, you should read Stephen Pinker's "The Better Angels of our Nature". I won't attempt to restate his arguments here, but there's very compelling evidence that we've become dramatically less violent and more tolerant in step with our increased technology.

The second is that advanced technology is impossible without extremely high levels of cooperation. For one example, the massive, interlocking global supply chains that are needed to produce all of our more advanced technologies today (such as the computer I'm typing this on or the phone sitting next to the computer) are mind-bogglingly complex and involve a significant fraction of the world. Broad negotiation and cooperation requires empathy, the ability to understand the minds and goals of both your collaborators and your opponents, and that same empathy slowly -- but inevitably -- results in discomfort with violence and suffering.

Indeed, we've become uncomfortable with violence to and suffering of even non-human creatures. Up to the 19th century cat burning was a popular mass entertainment in much of Europe. They'd hang a sack full of live cats over a bonfire, or douse a cat in oil and light it's tail on fire and chase it through the street. Although there were people who found these activities distasteful, the vast majority found them hilarious. Today, that would be reversed, and the vast majority would call such "entertainment" sick. In many jurisdictions, such animal cruelty is a felony.

It's clear that we're rapidly proceeding further down this road. We devote large areas of land and resources to preserving other species. Vegetarianism and veganism are on the rise, and I expect that within a few decades we'll have good cultured meats and that we'll virtually cease killing other animals for food. As the human population declines (it's rising towards a peak but will then begin to fall) and our wealth increases we'll be better able to indulge our empathy and go ever further to minimize future killing and we'll work hard to try to repair the damage we've done to other species.

Your argument is that it seems likely that advanced alien species would have followed much the same course that ours did. I agree, I think it stands to reason they'll have followed that course to become very peaceful and tolerant, particularly if they have achieved FTL travel which should completely eliminate any need to compete for resources. To reach the stars (assuming that's possible) will require openness and scientific inquisitiveness that are incompatible with violence and subjugation, and make them unnecessary.

Comment Re:With all due respect to Mr. Hawking and us... (Score 1) 279

Which is why folks like Einstein worked so hard to find alternative theories and disprove quantum theory.

Albert Einstein was one of the co-founders of quantum mechanics. Indeed, he arguably created the field when he originated the idea that energy can exist only in discrete quanta in his paper on the photoelectric effect, for which he received the Nobel prize. He never tried to disprove quantum theory. He was uncomfortable with some of the implications, particularly quantum entanglement, and spent a lot of time seeking a way to fix quantum theory so that it would obey his notions of locality, but he never tried to disprove it.

Comment Re:Work around? (Score 1) 220

Yeah, sell the fiber network to Pinetops for $1 and then they can hire Wilson to run the net.

That would require that there be a legally entity "Pinetops" to do the buying. If it's an unincorporated area, there isn't. Of course, the residents of Pinetops could create a corporation "Pinetops Internet", or something, and have it buy the fiber network. Assuming the state law doesn't prevent that somehow.

Comment Re:just one thing to say (Score 1) 610

If the DNC wasn't corrupt at the core you probably would have had Sanders instead....

It's a good thing that didn't happen. Trump probably could have beaten Sanders. I like Sanders quite a bit myself (even though I disagree with a lot of his policy positions, I think he's a good man and would make a fair president), but his extreme-left history makes him virtually unelectable in the generals. The RNC would have had a field day with anti-Bernie ads if he'd gotten the Democratic nod; there's just so much to draw on.

Comment Re:OMG! No one was talking about Assange for five (Score 1) 379

a) He hasn't been charged with anything

Only because he can't be charged in absentia.

b) It isn't "rape" he's wanted for questioning over.

Sweden says it is. Specifically, it's a lesser degree of rape which doesn't involve violence but still includes non-consensual intercourse. I suppose your scare quotes are because this doesn't meet the your definition of rape?

Comment Re:Abolish Jobs (Score 1) 192

The focus on "the almighty dollar" is actually a focus on "goods and services needed and desired by humans".

While I get your point, you're still wrong. Focus on "the almighty dollar" is actually a focus on calculating everything, and especially transfer of property. There are certainly situations where there IS a need to calculate transfer of property, basically to ensure that everyone gets his share, but making these calculations the alpha and omega of all human relations is certainly not a law of nature - in many societies family relations are not calculation-based, for example.

You apparently didn't read the last paragraph of my post.

Comment Re:what a load of shit (Score 2) 233

What people say they will do in a situation and what people do in a situation rarely have any correlation.

In this case I think people would do exactly what they say. The first day. Maybe the second. The extraordinarily fearful might last a week or two. The majority would probably find themselves looking in momentary panic when something unexpected happens for the first few months, but even that would pass.

Personally, I trust math. If you can show me properly-gathered and evaluated statistics that demonstrate that the car drives as well as or better than the average human driver, I'm more than happy to let it do its thing while I do mine. In fact, even ignoring that I'd rather not waste my time driving, the car is probably better at getting me where I'm going safely than I would be. While I think I'm quite a good driver, odds and the Dunning-Kruger effect mean that I'm likely pretty average -- or lower.

Comment Re:Whistleblowers Happen When the Gov Violates Law (Score 2) 278

If the NSA does not want the hassle of whistleblowers, then it should simply follow the law.

"Simply follow the law" isn't really good enough, because people who want to justify their actions can almost always construe the law in their favor. The NSA is an excellent case in point: they simply determined that "collected" meant "looked at by a human", leaving them free to hoover up everything and to process it all electronically, presenting it to human eyes only when they could be reasonably certain that it involved something they were authorized to "collect". That's a rather ludicrous definition of "collect" but everyone wanted to accept it, the people in power got attorneys to say it in writing, and off they went, all quite convinced that they were following the law.

No organization of humans can be trusted to follow a set of rules they'd like to work around unless there is oversight. Government employees are quite scrupulous about following the law as they understand it, but without oversight they have a tremendous amount of flexibility in how they interpret it.

We task Congress with the job of overseeing the actions of our intelligence organizations, which makes them directly culpable for any creative interpretations of the law. This seems ideal, since you'd expect the body that makes the law to be the best possible authority on what it actually means. But what happened was that Congress, and in particular the House and Senate intelligence committees failed utterly at doing their job.

Snowden showed the world how badly those committees had failed. We shouldn't be surprised that their response is to excoriate him, because the alternative is to castigate themselves and they're not going to do that, especially not in an election year.

Slashdot Top Deals

Save the whales. Collect the whole set.