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

 



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

Comment Re:I still want short distance & long distance (Score 1) 395

"getting a free ride to consumer grade accounts"

What free ride?  Content providers pay for their internet access.
If the ISP cannot price their offerings such that they are able to deal with the traffic, that is on them.

What you propose is nothing less than extortion ( "pay up for the packets... get slowed..." )

Comment Re:Poor monkeys (Score 2) 50

Thought experiment:

Very advanced aliens come to earth.  ( they got lost ( not very advanced, eh? ), wrong turn at Aldebaran )
They are ( i would not argue ethically, but ) advanced beyond us.  Lets concentrate on the power/technology aspect of this.
They have power to dominate us as individuals and as a civilization.  And they live about 1000 years, so our ~100 year span is "brief" to them.
They are biologically similar to us, so the things that go wrong in us also go wrong in them.
So, they decide that we make good test subjects for research into various research topics ( regrowing limbs, how long can the brain live without a body, without sensory input, hair loss, etc ).

They land here, and pick *you* for something that will benefit them tremendously, but will require things be done to your person.
It may be painful, but they will have some pity for your state, and pump you up on painkillers where this does not harm the experiment.
Your mental state will not be considered.  Addicted is OK for them, you are a test subject.
Your connections to fellow human beings will not be considered, unless that is part of the test, and staying with your loved ones is very unlikely.
You will also be put down painlessly at the conclusion of their test, even if the test is a success.
You will, in no case, receive any benefits of this research, nor will humanity as a whole.
Your body will be disposed of after, probably as food for other experiments.

Has the ethical landscape changed for you?
If you say "no", I ask "really?"

Comment Re:Classic over-engineering. (Score 2) 303

They do upgrade and iterate the aircraft.  The F-15 is up to version D/E ( E being the strike variant, ground attack roles are often added towards the end of a fighter's lifespan )

Unfortunately, there does come a time when, depending on the intended use, upgrade and iterate does not work any more.
For aircraft like the B-1/B-52 and like the A-10, I am in much more agreement with you.  But for fighters, things get different.
You can do what the Russians are doing, buy many less expensive aircraft.  But you have to buy more. Expense can still be high.

When the F-15 ( Design from 1967, First Flight 1972 ) entered service, 20k pounds of thrust per engine was norm, now, 40k pounds of thrust, with vectoring thrust is the norm.  You say, shore it up, make it stronger.  Sure, but then you really have to re-engineer a fair bit of the aircraft.  Low observable was just on the horizon at that time, so the aircraft shape is not optimal, they did not have the resources to refine the shape.  More re-engineering.  And there are improvements in the radar and avionics.  Often, existing aircraft are updated with these, but at some point the space and power and aircraft shape requirements mean it just wont go.

So, my prescription would be
  update and iterate as needed
  when a new aircraft is really needed, design a specific aircraft for that role.  The F-22 had it's teething pains ( if you watch closely pretty much *every* aircraft does.  Famous example, P-51 Mustang.  Almost didn't make it.  The British stuck a Merlin engine ( with 2 speed, 2 stage supercharger ) replacing the Allison single stage supercharged engine* in a test aircraft sent over for evaluation ( the Mustang was built for the English ) after they tested it with the Allison, and found it lacking.  Today, everyone forgets it's teething troubles, and praises it )
Where things go really sideways is when the aircraft is designed for multiple missions.
We keep thinking we are being smart, but it keeps biting us in the bottom.  F/B-111, is an obscure example..  Supposed to be a naval fighter and ground attack aircraft.  When it's role was finally limited to the ground attack part ( with the F-14 emerging as a fighter to take that role ) it was able to succeed.
The F-35 is our recent example.  It may turn out to be an excellent aircraft, but it is going thru it's teething time now.  And trying to make it a good fighter and bomber, and STOL/STOVL aircraft ( to suit Marines and British interest in a Harrier replacement ) is complicating things.
Separate the concerns.  And, in a sense, they are, with the A/B/C variants of the aircraft, but the ties to each other complicate things.

* the Allison engine was a good engine, it was crippled by the supercharger.  Army Air Corps people did not believe there was a need, never mind what was going on in Europe. The same engine, turbocharged, in the P-38 gave America it's first 400+ mph aircraft.

Comment Re:Smart key for ignition, not access. (Score 1) 215

"Even if locked, opening the door via the interior door latch WILL unlock the door."

Depends on the car.
My Fords did this great.  BMW's have a pull twice thing ( first pull unlocks, second pull opens )
GM, I have not owned any recent ones, but my recollection is that they dont open unless you unlock using the inside thingy to unlock.

Comment Re:Why lock the car? (Score 1) 215

In the days of my youth, I bought a club and used it on my pickup.
I went to a friend's house, the friend had some friends of, shall we say, ill repute.
My friend told me not to bother with the club, it was not effective.  I disputed, he said, "Ok...".
We went into the house, then back out a short time later.  My friend "I told you so...".
There was the club, sitting on the seat, no damage to the steering wheel, none to the club.
The club was still locked, and, as far as I could tell, just as it was when I put it on while discussing it's goodness.

Comment Re:More likely idea: unbalanced and violent (Score 1) 404

I do not see where in that scripture anyone is being called on to perform anything, except to avoid such things for one's self.
So, a literal interpretation does not seem to me to give itself to hostile or harmful actions against others ( there is exhortation to discuss, but within the context of followers of Christ persuading someone seemingly errant toward more Godly actions/thoughts ).

We are also told not to judge others, that God will handle that for himself
to forgive others, if we wish to be forgiven
to love others, and pass God's love on to others, even to those we would consider enemies.
I do not know how some claim the label 'Christian' while not being cognizant and observing these

Yes, that scripture does begin with one thing ( homosexuality ), but eventually does include other sin
There may be levels of sin, but I see nothing calling for more than being as correct in oneself as possible.

A note, my Church ( and former Church ) are very likely considered "Fundamentalist", but I never experienced any teaching contrary to love, forgive, dont condemn.

Comment Re:Tread Carefully (Score 0) 151

I will try to read it, thank you.

I had never thought about a united ProUS Korea.  Yes, China would fear that.

I do find all the "nuke them till they glow..." comments when NK misbehaves to be remarkably dense.
China would never stand for any such thing.

I wish I could pick your brain for a few hours on that and other subjects.
Work calls.

Comment Re:This sort of thing is why people like Trump (Score 1) 420

<quote>So the choice is to make them overseas or don't make them at all.</quote>

In this case ( and others ), the company had the workers, was presumably profitable, and the company elected to outsource anyway.
So, I am not convinced this argument flys always.

<quote>The problem is you are now paying tariffs and more money for the items.</quote>

You are not paying tariffs, by definition.  You are paying ( more, I will certainly grant you ) for the items, but you are paying that within your economy.
At levels consistent with the cost of other goods in your economy
( this is what the turkeys pushing for outsourcing dont get, not only do you loose someone paid enough to afford the expensive goods you are trying to sell ( here, because, by definition, they cant afford them where you are outsourcing to ), but you are performing wage arbitrage.  Sounds good to them "cheap wages now, and later on too!", but you cant sell at the price points you want, because you pushed money out of your local system ( and if you believe the other countries participating will reciprocate, I have a unicorn to sell you ) and made less available to yourself.  All because you think "ill have an extra helping now, screw those who come after me". )

<quote>This is the problem with trying to centrally plan an economy.</quote>

Why bring in "central planning"?  There is a lot of area between "all planned at the top" and "nothing planned at the top".

Comment Re: Duh (Score 1) 376

"Microsoft doesn't make much money from OS updates. They never have. It's a tiny portion of their revenue."

Exactly.  This is the spur.  They want more.

"Besides, what features would be locked out if Windows were to become a subscription based model? Please do tell"

The whole operating system?  Pay your monthly subscription or you cannot use your machine.
What else would be the point?  What else would be needed?

Slashdot Top Deals

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...