Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment Re:Uses? (Score 1) 55

The company I work for uses a similar device in a tablet computer (really more of a brick computer, but anyway)... At the time it was developed the Pi Compute didn't exist, which is unfortunately because they one we have turned out to be a pain in the arse.

They are likely to be used in a lot of industrial applications where the designer doesn't want to build and support their own ARM system and software environment, they just want something they can plug in and run an OS on out of the box, with a few peripherals of their own.

Comment Re: Non Sequitur Conclusion (Score 1) 196

Different test. Yours is a tautology.

My test: people who admit to using profanity are 100% truthful. People who say they don't are 50/50 truthful.

I show that even if people who don't use profanity are 100% truthful, the claim "I don't use profanity" is a better indicator of being a liar than "I use profanity" even though the only people who lie are those who use profanity.

Your test: people who don't use profanity are 100% truthful - but that's an axiom in my (made up) data because I exclude class 4. only 50% of the ones who do use profanity are truthful - I assign equal numbers to the three extant classes.

Comment Re:Infrastructure vs Independence (Score 1) 353

But for the electricity, not only is there transmission loss, but there's also repeaters, lines, equipment along the way, the maintenance of that equipment, accessing that equipment, oh it's horrible. Maintaining infrastructure is a horrible horrible game when you're outside of a major city's orbit.

What is an electricity "repeater"?

So for electricity you install a high voltage, low loss transmission line once. Losses are in the order of 3%/1000km. Maintenance is fairly low.

For gas you need to install a large underground tank, send large vehicles that need regular, expensive maintenance and which themselves produce a lot of pollution and CO2, staff the dispensing station and maintain the pumps. Plus you cause significant additional wear on the roads due to the heavy tanker going over them.

Can you cite an actual real world location in the US that backs up your claims?

Comment Re:Objective fraud (Score 1) 196

you also have to show intent

He's not being convicted.
He's being described.

If he's told a lot of incredibly obvious lies he's a liar no matter what reason it was for.
For example, Mark Twain called himself a liar despite doing it to entertain while making sure he didn't actually fool anybody beyond the end of whatever tall tail was told.
Trump lies. A lot. Whether he calls it making a deal, conning a rube or locker room talk or whatever it's still a lie no matter what reason it was for. How else did he turn the anger at the "1%" into getting people to vote for one of the worst of the "1%"?

Comment Re:Good for the gooser.... (Score 1, Informative) 196

There's sudden grabbing and there's fondling after a breathy "Happy Birthday Mr President".
One is a crime due to lack of consent and the other is between consenting adults.

It's only the land of the nipple at the superbowl and places under Sharia law where I'd have to explain the difference between sexual assault and sex to someone over 15.

Comment Re:Missed point (Score 1, Offtopic) 196

I find it very funny when someone says "believe me" after a huge and incredibly obvious lie. It seems to happen a lot.

Scamming has become so wrote to them that it is literally integrated into their personalities at a fundamental level.

They, the Bush family and a few other families lurking mostly around Washington have been at it for more than one generation. If you read a bit about Washington before the civil war you'll recognize a lot of surnames (not the Bush family but plenty of others), that's how long some of these "dynasties" have been going in the land that revolted against royalty.
Christopher Hitchins knew Bill Clinton personally from the age of around 20 despite seeming to try to avoid him as much as possible - what he wrote on the topic provides a very interesting and very critical view from "the left".

Comment This is insanely obvious (Score 1) 261

Manning should get a full pardon and a medal of honour. S/he has done more for this country than Biden ever did, and that was after getting a forcible deployment against regimental doctor's orders.

The worst Manning is truly guilty of is exploiting severe violations of DoD regulations by the unit s/he was in. Those violations, and not her actions,compromised national security, as did Manning's superior officer. Those people were under strict orders on not deploying the severely mentally ill into Iraq and to withdraw clearance from such folk, but violated those orders in order to look pretty. That is a serious crime. A crime they, not Chelsea, are guilty of.

Under DoD regulations, computers holding top secret information may NOT be secured by just a password and may NOT support USB devices. I was working for the military when they did the cutover from passwords to passwords plus Class III digital certificate on a smartcard. The USB restriction has been there more-or-less from the introduction of USB, as it violates Rainbow Book standards requiring enforceable multi-level security.

I should not have to point this out on Slashdot, half the three digit IDers were probably involved in writing the standards! And the rest know all this because we had to look the bloody stuff up to get the NSA's SELinux working!

She was also under orders, remember, to ensure that no war crime was concealed by the military. Concealing a war crime, even if that's your sole involvement, is a firing squad offence under international law. Has been since the Nuremberg Trials. Nor is it acceptable to be ordered to carry out such a cover-up. You are forbidden from obeying such orders on pain of death.

Those are the rules. The U.S. military's sole defence is that nobody is big enough to enforce them. If someone did, the U.S. population would be noticeably smaller afterwards. We know that because of Manning.

But Manning's service doesn't end there. Military philosophers, tacticians and strategists will be poring over those notes for decades, running simulations to see when, where and how the U.S. was eventually defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq. They will compare actions carried out with the military philosophies the U.S. officially abandoned in favour of modern theories. They will search for ways in which the new approaches worked and where they should have stuck with the traditional.

Because modern computers can run millions, even billions, of tactical simulations in just a few hours, it is certain that, inside of a decade, someone will have done this and published a book on where the military went wrong and where the Taliban and Iraqi army went wrong as well. This core material allows for that.

These wars may turn out to be our Sun Tzu Moment, when through cataclysmic defeats at the hands of, essentially, barbarians (and make no mistake, they're defeats), a systematic analysis of all that went wrong will be conducted in order to produce a guide on how to have things guaranteed to go right.

Without Manning's data, this couldn't happen. Direct footage, real-time tactical information, logistics, international political interactions, there's enough there to actually do that.

I'd prefer it to be us, because nothing stops the next terror group to form from performing the same study. Historically, it has been shown that a smart army can defeat a confident opponent with superior technology and ten times the numbers, or with inferior technology and a hundred times the numbers. No reason to assume these are hard limits.

If it is us that figures it out, the Pentagon (still fixated on Admiral Poyndexter and his psychic warriors) won't be involved, it'll be people on the outside with more nous and fewer yes-men. And for that, Manning deserves the highest reward.

Besides, it'll annoy the neoconservatives and that's worth their weight in gold-plated latium.

Comment Re:Non Sequitur Conclusion (Score 2, Interesting) 196

I'm not even sure the study is that good.

It seems there are four groups:

People who use profanity and admit it.
People who don't use profanity and admit it.
People who use profanity but don't admit it.
People who don't use profanity but claim to.

If we make the assumption that there's nobody in the last class and the other three classes are all equal sized then people who admit to using profanity will all be honest while only half of the people who claim to not use profanity will be honest.

In fact, I cannot see any way that the people who admit to using profanity can possibly appear less honest than the people who do on this test.

Slashdot Top Deals

The nation that controls magnetism controls the universe. -- Chester Gould/Dick Tracy

Working...