Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Cloudflare is malware/spyware (Score 1) 56

and if you disable javascript, most site will actually not work

And in the final analysis, that might be a good thing. Did you (your company) write that JavaScript? Probably not. You downloaded some crap from npm and included it in your pages.

IIRC, it was some npm installation scripts that allowed a "dependencies" section to include a URL for code to be included. From anywhere in the Internet. Bypassing the repository. And allowing the owner to place new code at that location any time they saw fit. Some of the exploits did things like encrypt your disk and ransom your data. Or steal your BitCoin wallets. Or AI development system tokens.

But quite a bit of low level stuff gets snuck into these repositories. Including stuff that lies quietly, damaging nothing. But inserting tracking code into your pages for the benefit of unknown third parties. So, no. I won't be loading your web pages along with a bunch of code that I don't know what it does. And neither do you.

I use umatrix and while i allow cloudflare javascript for captchas

CloudFlare got caught (by my ISP) for using a web site that was widely considered to be a scam site. I did a search on the URL and read a bunch of "interesting" reports on it. Including an email that Google had sent in response to the blocking, pleading with ISPs to stop it. Why was Google apologizing for ClownFlare's f*ck-up? My best guess is that they had piggybacked their own tracking stuff onto CFs Captchas. You just can't trust anyone who uses JavaScript anymore.

Comment Re:Shouldn't this be expected? (Score 1) 40

Even us nerds, we buy our own but depending on our ISP, it's still behind their router/modem device in the path from client to Internet.

In which case, the most an ISP can do if they detect an unsecured device on the customer side of their modem is to cut off service.

Lots of Windows systems will be going dark soon. Too bad you didn't upgrade when the latest OS release came down the pipe. Your new system will be available as soon as we find some DRAM.

Comment Re:Let's see (Score 1) 34

I'm sure the shareholders will be lining up in droves to accept your offer of 1/25000 of a cent per share.

In all seriousness, though, if bankruptcy is a real possibility, the idea of a public buyout of some of these old companies isn't a terrible one. Maybe even have the government buy it and make it free for U.S. citizens, but continue to make money on the property abroad. :-)

Comment Re:whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also rea (Score 1) 227

This is why Medicare for all, by itself, wouldn't do anything to lower healthcare costs. It would probably reduce the cost and complexity of billing, which would cut overall cost by a few percentage points. To really reduce costs, it would have to force providers to lower costs.

Assuming M4A ends up being a single payer system, that would, in fact, make it very possible to force providers to lower costs.

Branded drugs cost 2-3X as much (though generics are often actually cheaper in the US) than elsewhere), which is an area that is obviously ripe for savings... but there's a risk there because those high prices fund a lot of research (pharma is also not terribly profitable; that revenue mostly gets sunk into new drugs).

Research should be funded directly, not by paying more for unrelated prescription drugs. That's the whole point of having grant programs from agencies like NIH.

The vast majority of hospitals in the US are non-profits, so that 50% figure is based on relatively thin data. However, those few for-profit hospitals compete directly with lots of non-profits, so their price and cost structures have to be comparable.

One of the biggest problems, IMO, is healthcare consolidation. When most of the hospitals in an area are owned by big chains, it really doesn't matter if they are nonprofit. Big organizations just naturally tend to bloat and waste tons of money at every level of the system, because they don't have the same incentives to keep things lean. Consolidation has generally resulted in higher prices and lower quality of care, from what I've seen.

Comment Re: It's bots and ragebait, thats why (Score 1) 87

Meanwhile, every other entry in the feed is an advert.

Every other entry? Try every entry. Something like 1% of my Facebook feed is actual organic content from friends. 14% or so is from groups. The other 85% is ads. And I'm being optimistic when I say that it is only 85%. When I see about the first or second ad, I close Facebook, because it's just going to be ads all the way down after that.

Comment China, maybe (Score 2) 70

But Russia and Iran? They have no meaningful A.I. offerings to compete with. China does, but their tactic would be to promote the market for A.I. And then undermine US sunk costs with their lower priced services. And come to market with cheaper DRAM aimed at consumers.

It's mainly plain old FUD. Just stir up some griping about "those damned Communists". Neither Russia or Iran being a member.

Comment Re:Cloudflare is malware/spyware (Score 2) 56

That's what CloudFlare is for. To make sure you haven't turned JavaScript off, are not blocking ads and have an acceptable level of tracking allowed.

Web site operators with ads aren't nearly as interested in blocking bots. They get paid for ad views. Prove that it wasn't a human that clicked that MongoDb banner. Or pay up.

It's the advertisers that should be screaming about the scraping. They're the ones that have to write the checks to the site owners.

Comment This seems dubious... (Score 4, Insightful) 44

This seems dubious at multiple levels.

Solar panels: The roof of a trailer is about 450 square feet. In the northeastern U.S., you would average only 3.5 hours of full sun, so you'd get only a little over 13 kW per day.

Tesla semis are pretty efficient, and they use about 1.7 kWh per mile. So in an entire day, covering the entire roof of a trailer with solar panels would add a whopping 7 miles of range, or 15 minutes of extra driving — the equivalent of plugging into a Tesla Megacharger for maybe 30 seconds or so.

Let's optimistically assume that the vehicle can carry 48,000 pounds. If those panels occupy the full roof area, then at about 3 pounds of weight per square foot, those solar panels would weigh 1500 pounds, or about 3% of your cargo, all to reduce your fuel usage by as little as 1% if you're doing long haul at 65 MPH. And that weight number may be wildly optimistic. Trailers like that aren't designed to have weight on the roof, and would require additional structure to hold that extra weight. The real losses could be significantly higher. Unless you're driving less than a couple of hundred miles in a day, the solar panels won't break even. And if you're driving less than a couple of hundred miles per day, there's no reason you can't go electric.

Battery and motor on the trailer: I would expect most trucks to be used primarily for either short-haul or long-haul purposes, not both. If you're doing long-haul, you'd probably be better off with an actual hybrid tractor so that you get the benefit no matter whose trailer you're hauling. If you're doing short-haul, there's likely no reason not to go full electric.

I just don't get it.

Comment Re:Good luck with that (Score 1) 96

Same thing. A distinction without much difference. This is the same as someone claiming that Meta isn't just some rebranding of Facebook.

Facebook doesn't have a separate C-suite (CEO, CFO, etc.) from its parent company. Waymo does. So while Waymo is considered part of Alphabet because it is a majority shareholder, you're kidding yourself if you think it is at all like Meta and Facebook. There may not be a hard line between them, but there's a definite line.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced. - John Keats

Working...