Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Re:This is why we need Trump (Score 4, Interesting) 255

TRUMP 2016!!!

I don't think this is what he meant by "grab them by the pussy"

Not that I'm supporting Trump (he's more evil than Cthulhu, almost as bad as Hillary), but have you noticed how those 30ish women who accused him of sexual assault all went silent the moment the election was over? Shouldn't they be trying to bring him to justice? Maybe, just maybe, it was all staged false accusations as certain people like this kind of methods? See Assange, or what esr was tipped about.

Comment Re:Okay, so they've been spying (Score 1) 95

Now what?

Intercept NSA/GCHQ communications and/or hack them back? DDoS all their IP ranges? What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Crowd-source the gathering of any identifying data/biometrics of those working for NSA/GCHQ with phone apps and host an open/searchable database online? Why would they stop if there's no cost/push-back?

They have to come to understand that spying on everyone as they have been will cause a backlash that will seriously impair their ability to do *actual* national-security duties.

Strat

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 0) 247

Also keep in mind the fed was created because of one of these conditions.

If you want to know how & why and by whom the Federal Reserve was created, read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin.

It's...unsettling...at best, and the implications flowing from what's revealed are downright frightening, though it does explain a lot of what's happened over the years regarding the Fed, the economy, and the US Dollar.

Strat

Comment Re:Youtube is not just a Music service (Score 1) 216

Many Youtube users never use it for music covered by the RIAA so it is not fair to compare it to services like Spotify that are primarily for music.

Google/YT should try suspending all the record label and label-signed artists' accounts for a full business quarter and see if the labels/IFPI/RIAA change their attitude after they watch their bottom-lines take a plunge.

The labels and their stables of artists need YT more than YT needs them.

Strat

Comment Re:How do you demand honesty (Score 4, Interesting) 557

they assume that the only thing that matters is winning

This is, unfortunately, an inherent trait in humans.

There was, many years ago, a "competition" in Scientific American to win up to $1M

The rules were:
1. Random draw from all the entries received
2. You could enter as many times as you liked - to make this easier you could write multiple entries on a single postcard. (write the number of entries you wanted to submit on your postcard)
3. Final prize was $1M divided by the total number of entries.

It was estimated that there was in the order of 10K readers of the column. (Actually I think it was less than this but I can't be bothered to try and track down the columns again now) There had also been a detailed discussion of the prisoners dilemma and other related problems in the previous weeks.

It's immediately obvious that to win $1M you need to be the only entrant and send in a postcard with a single entry on it.

If every subscriber sent in a single postcard with a single entry on it then someone would win of the order of $100.

But some people sent in huge numbers - the postcard filled with '9's. Others went one better and put a 9 and then filled the postcard with '!'s (factorial). Others went even further.

IIRC the author (Douglas Hofstadter) wasn't actually able to determine who the winner was. He lacked the ability to randomly select from the total number of entries. He couldn't even tell which of the numbers was actually the largest.

However, whoever won, the number of entries was so large that the prize was zero for all intents and purposes.

Some people got it - some wrote in to say that they hadn't submitted an entry because they had metaphorically "tossed a coin" and lost and so allowed someone else to win a bigger prize. But so many people were more interested in winning nothing than someone winning something.

Comment Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score 0, Troll) 557

The difference is my belief is falsifiable.

And that's the problem right there.

CAGW alarmists don't/won't provide falsifiable evidence that can be independently tested. They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research They will not release the actual programs, algorithms, and data used in their computer models, which still are unable to both track past climate changes while modeling the future global temperature rise rates claimed. Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases, while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.

In order to assume this is reason enough to greatly disrupt the US national economy (guaranteed other nations like China, Russia, and India will not harm *their* economies b/c of CAGW alarmism) requires a 'leap of faith' equal to that of a religion. It requires faith without any more proof than Christians have to believe in the God of Abraham.

The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting has not been that different from the Westboro Baptist Church nutters. They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.

Even their precious IPCC/Dr. Roy Cook "97% scientific consensus" is bullshit. The "97%" includes scientists who think humans have *some* effect on climate, which humorously includes many on the "Denier(TM)"-side. Hell, *I* believe humans have *some* effect, I've simply seen no evidence that justifies massive immediate changes.

https://youtu.be/PHyd-Y6haMg

CAGW==Religion(or scam)

Strat

Robotics

Scientists Develop Robotic Hand For People With Quadriplegia (phys.org) 22

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: Scientists have developed a mind-controlled robotic hand that allows people with certain types of spinal injuries to perform everyday tasks such as using a fork or drinking from a cup. The low-cost device was tested in Spain on six people with quadriplegia affecting their ability to grasp or manipulate objects. By wearing a cap that measures electric brain activity and eye movement the users were able to send signals to a tablet computer that controlled the glove-like device attached to their hand. Participants in the small-scale study were able to perform daily activities better with the robotic hand than without, according to results published Tuesday in the journal Science Robotics. It took participants just 10 minutes to learn how to use the system before they were able to carry out tasks such as picking up potato chips or signing a document. According to Surjo R. Soekadar, a neuroscientist at the University Hospital Tuebingen in Germany and lead author of the study, participants represented typical people with high spinal cord injuries, meaning they were able to move their shoulders but not their fingers. There were some limitations to the system, though. Users had to have sufficient function in their shoulder and arm to reach out with the robotic hand. And mounting the system required another person's help.

Comment Glitchless streaming. (Score 3, Interesting) 158

Can you name one thing that your customers actually want that is actually being prevented by network neutrality regulations?

Glitchless streaming.

Streaming (things like audio, video, phone calls) requires relatively small and constant bandwidth (though compression adds variability) but isn't good at tolerating dropouts or variations in transit time. When it does get dropouts it's better to NOT send a retry correction (and have the retry packet risk delaying and/or forcing the drop of another packet).

TCP connections (things like big file transfers) error check and retry, fixing dropouts and errors so the data arrives intact, though with no guarantee exactly when. But they achieve high bandwidth and evenly divide the bandwidth at a bottleneck by deliberately speeding up until they super-saturate the bottleneck and force dropouts. The dropouts tell them they've hit the limit, so they slow down and track the bleeding edge.

Put them both on a link and treat the packets equally and TCP causes streaming to break up, stutter, etc. Overbuilding the net helps, but if the data to be tranferred is big enough TCP will ALWAYS saturate a link somewhere along the way.

Identify the traffic type and treat their packets differently - giving higher priority to stream packets (up to a limit, so applications can't gain by cheating, claiming to be a stream when they're not) - and then they play together just fine. Stream packets zip through, up to an allocation limit at some fraction of the available bandwidth, and TCP transfers evenly divide what's left - including the unused part of the streams' allocation.

But the tools for doing this also enable the ISPs to do other, not so good for customers, things. Provided they chose to do so, of course.

IMHO the bad behavior can be dealt with best, not by attempting to enforce "Network Neutrality" as a technical hack at an FCC regulation level, but as a consumer protection issue, by an agency like the FTC. Some high points:
  - Break up the vertical integration of ISPs into "content provider" conglomerates, so there's no incentive to penalize the packets of competitors to the mother-ship's services.
  - Treat things like throttling high-volume users and high-bandwidth services as consumer fraud: "You sold 'internet service'". Internet service doesn't work that way. Ditto "pay for better treatment of your packets" (but not "pay to sublet a fixed fraction of the pipe").
  - Extra scrutiny for possible monopolistic behavior anywhere there are less than four viable broadband competitors, making it impractical for customers to "vote with their feet".

Comment Re:Deinstitutionalization + Social Media + Guns = (Score 1) 773

If we all agree that de-institutionalizing the mentally ill was a mistake, can we skip the blaming step and just come up with the money to at least get us back to the state things were before that time when it happened due to nobody's fault? And since we all agree that "it" is a good idea, there shouldn't be a problem paying for it, right?

The problem is not so much the costs, but in turning back the legal clock, so to speak, and removing rights from the mentally ill. That's a big hurdle and one with many pitfalls and dangers. If taken too far, those people who are merely 'odd', 'unique' or who hold 'unusual' ideological or political beliefs, suffer an isolated bout of depression, temporary PTSD, see a therapist, etc etc could find themselves in a rubber room under heavy sedation. The USSR routinely locked political dissidents away in mental wards.

Strat

Comment Re:Provide this at the state level (Score 1) 278

He petitioned the courts and after a lengthy legal battle became the legal owner of John Casor (a white man) in 1654 in Virginia.

A side note; Thomas Jefferson was not born until 1743, so he and the other founders were not even born until nearly a century after Anthony Johnson became the first US slave-owner. The Founders did not institute slavery in the US, it was a legal institution when they were born. Most of the Founders who wrote about slavery found it detestable, but the southern Colonies had become dependent on slaves and would not join with the other Colonies if they made it illegal, and without the southern Colonies joining in, they would stand little chance against the British.

Strat

Comment Re:Provide this at the state level (Score 1) 278

No one cares what a bunch of racist landowners in the 1700's wanted, they are dead now. Those that are living will decide what is and isn't valid.

A couple of historical notes FYI.

The person responsible for making slavery a legal institution in the Colonies and who also was the very first slave-owner was a land-owning black man named Anthony Johnson. He petitioned the courts and after a lengthy legal battle became the legal owner of John Casor (a white man) in 1654 in Virginia. Johnson went on to acquire other white slaves.

Thomas Jefferson neither bought nor sold a single slave. He inherited slaves from his family and his wife's family. It was highly illegal to free a slave at that time in the Colonies, so he would have likely been hung if he'd tried to set them free. Things like the "underground railroad" were still about a century in the future.

It's OK to be angry at injustice, but one must be very careful one has the correct target(s) first or you become part of the problem.

Strat

Comment Re:I beg to differ (Score 1) 160

But that's probably it.

Most people have some time when they want to watch TV. While there's something on Netflix suitable they'll stay. But as soon as there isn't anything they'll look for alternatives and cancel their subscription.

It's that ages old beancounter issue. Making small "cost cutting" measures doesn't immediately lose you customers and increases your profits but it a) makes it harder to attract new customers, b) makes it more likely that regular customers will try alternatives and c) eventually triggers the regulars to be so dissatisfied that they leave and tell everyone "it used to be good but..."

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same entropy to create bugs instead?" -- Steve Elias

Working...