Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Dougla's Adams said it best (Score 1) 689

Plurality voting with single member districts leads to two party systems. It would require seriously amending the Constitution to change that.

Actually it wouldn't take amending the Constitution [which says nothing about requiring plurality or First-Past-the-Post voting], only changing Federal election laws, in order to completely break the plurality system.

First, there are two states (Maine and Nebraska) where the Electoral College vote can be split; increasing which states with this system would then magnify the value of 3rd-party efforts [as each such state greatly increases the odds of a minor candidate earning the one or two electoral vote(s) which might deadlock the EC, forcing the election to be determined by the House instead]. As seen by the fact this system already exists, this change could be implemented without requiring changes to the Constitution or federal election laws, only state laws.

Secondly, change could be instituted within the House of Representatives by revising the laws on how members are elected: Federal law requires the current separate district methodology but we could move towards a state-level proportional representation system. This would grant easier third-party access to Congress and, while not directly contributing to Presidential aspirations, would elevate the visibility of those platforms and policies. Again, this change would not require a Constitutional amendment, but only altering existing Federal election laws.

Because FPTP/plurality voting sustains the current two-party system even in the face of such hatred the electorate shows for Clinton and Trump, saying these changes do not require amending the Constitution does seem to discount the resistance these changes would face... but I believe the unprecedented hatred for those two candidates and the extreme partisanship on display by their supporters together indicate the importance of making them.

Comment Re:Computers and networks in cars are fine (Score 1) 76

In principle I agree with you, but...

Computers + cars, as you've said, is a wonderful thing.
I personally chose my [used] car based on the LACK OF network connectivity (before it was a known issue).

I liked the Chrysler 300 w/ uConnect. So I bought one -- specifically 2012. I wasn't considering any 2013 or later as it was mid-way through 2013 that they added Internet capabilities to uConnect. I wasn't going to muck around trying to figure out when the car I wanted was manufactured during the year -- I just decided to only look at and consider 2012 or before.

We all see how well that played out (w/ Jeep). The exact same system / setup is in the Jeep...

Comment Re:Why bother? (Score 4, Informative) 49

It's the principle of the thing.

Apple is winning against these requests from the government, but barely. Wikipedia says that a judge ruled in their favour in Brooklyn, but in the most publicized case - the case of the San Bernadino terrorists, the FBI withdrew their request rather than have Apple's objection decided on by the judge.

Dragging these assholes into the sunlight and making their methods a matter of public record makes things better for everybody.

Comment Re:Here's what I do (Score 1) 366

I love Synology hardware -- don't trust their updates. One of their recent updates wiped my "root" account on the device(s). They can muck with admin, but should never touch root, but I digress...

RAID-6 is the way to go IMHO. Synology's built-in backup mechanisms didn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling -- it all goes into a database. When shit hits the fan I want quick quick quick access to my (or your) files.

I chose the two Synology approach. Each with 8 drives, RAID-6 (dual hard drive failure). One onsite. One off. This is for the house...

Here's the trick: rsync over ssh to a local hard-linked differential backup. I have 5T of live data currently with hundreds of full backup sets -- this is only using 8T on the remote backup array today (so 3T of new or different files over a few hundred days). The Mac's backup to the array to sparsebundles which is then rsync'd to hard-linked differential backup sets. Only the changed bundle files are transferred, but each set is a complete bundle.

On the remote it looks like this: 1/all_my_files and then 2/all_my_files ... 199/all_my_files. Only when the oldest backup of the file is deleted is the data really released. Deleting 1/some_file will release the inode, but the data/file may still exist in 2/some_file, etc...

I have bash scripts / cron doing it all. Assuming backup set "1" is in place the rsync for "2" may look like:
rsync -avx --human-readable --progress --stats --delete --ignore-errors --force --link-dest=1 -e 'ssh -p ${PORT} ' root@${IP}:/volume1/${REMOTE_DIR}/ 2

Comment Citisucks (Score 1) 675

I love Citibank's ATM's ... you now have to "dip" your card (swipe), wait for the machine to tell you to just insert and leave the card (chip'd), wait some more, THEN enter your PIN number.

My other problem (with ALL banks) is that I DO NOT WANT A CREDIT CARD (or debit) tied to my primary checking account. The account where I, you know, pay my bills. Who's bright idea was it to do this -- allow someone to easily empty my account leaving me with bounced payments while cleaning up the mess?

I want a ATM [only] card. Can't get that anymore. So I take debit/credit cards and lock them away and NEVER EVER use them other than as a ATM card and ONLY at their locations. I never pull cash out any old place. Silly IMHO.

Give me a credit card that requires a PIN entered. Problem solved (if programmed correctly -- assume the card reader / phone or internet connection have been tampered with).

Comment Still original content (Score 5, Insightful) 193

The article briefly mentions original content like it was their last smart move and they'll have to do something else to survive. I would disagree with that assessment.

The media cartels (MPAA etc) are trying to starve out Netflix by jacking up their licensing fees, onerous international distribution agreements, etc etc.

The Netflix back catalog of old movies has actually been shrinking. The focus on original content is to bring control to their programming so that they aren't 100% at the mercy of the cartels who want nothing more than for Netflix to die. The goal of the cartels is that Hulu or some other godforsaken corp-owned property can retain their dominance of the public eyeball.

That's why Netflix has gone all in on their original programming. I just finished watching Stranger Things and it is really good. Because Netflix developed it themselves, they don't have to negotiate an international distribution agreement and they can release it simultaneously in all the markets they offer subscriptions. That's huge. I watched past the credits and there were translation teams for about 8 languages - I think I saw French, Spanish, Japanese, German among them.

So I think their play is what they are already doing - pour money into original programming, build their own back catalog so they aren't at the mercy of greedy content providers, and keep providing great customer service.

Slashdot Top Deals

Thus spake the master programmer: "When a program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"