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


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

Comment Re:In other words (Score 1) 80

A blockchain with limited participants is still a blockchain. It's as trustworthy as those participants.

If your system allows you to go back to earlier blocks and "Edit data in-place", and replace a prior block completely with no record of the original version, Then it's not a real Block chain, because the verification signatures on later blocks for validating the entire chain don't exist or aren't being checked --- which makes it not a chain, taking the word "Chain" out of the word "blockchain".

Comment Re:E.g. We can't use it if we can't cheat (Score 2) 80

The reality with financial transactions is some decisions are actually reversed or rolled back. What do you do when your ledger says a transaction occurred that actually didn't occur?

If it's in a blockchain, and it pertains to a cryptocurrency exchange, then it DID occur, because the thing in the Blockchain IS the transaction.

If it's something else, then you establish rules that let you create a New entry which will be recorded As If it was an edit, BUT it is not an "In place" edit; it's a new record in the Blockchain that is interpreted as an edit, so you could then later go back and programmatically see that an edit was made, and the historical information "THat such and such transaction was erased" will always be intact as an element in the chain.

Comment Re:So there is room for a 3.5mm jack? (Score 1) 193

So the user completed step One..... now the tricky bit is Step 2, which is to attach some wires to the solder pads they removed the headphone jack component from, attach the opposite ends of the wire to a headphone receptacle, and mount the headphone receptacle to the whole you drilled.

Comment Re:Judge is Retarded (Score 3, Insightful) 49

That's the kind of info that should be available to all shareholders.

Nope, Not the court's decision. It's management's decision to publish to shareholders or not.

And the information they revealed could have negative repurcussions against them as a business.

This is the kind of thing that should have resulted in a default judgement against Oracle and sanctioning their lawyers against participating in further cases.

Comment The engineers lament (Score 1) 180

Ford chose death and destruction over the lives of customers.

To this day I won't own Ford.

Get ready to change your mind! Hear from the engineer who caused the pinto not to be recalled:

But does a rear-positioned gas tank qualify as traceable cause? Traceable cause suggests a deviation from the norm. It turns out, however, that most compacts of that era had fuel tanks behind the rear axle. A former head of the N.H.T.S.A. testified on Ford's behalf, stating that in his opinion the Pinto's design was no more or less safe than that of any other car in its class, like the Chevrolet Vega or the A.M.C. Gremlin. Under cross-examination, one of the chief witnesses for the prosecutionâ"an automobile-safety consultant named Byron Blochâ"conceded the point.


"Yet, from an engineer's standpoint, the same information is much more ambiguous. Every car on the road is differentâ"safer in some ways and less safe in others. So does the one area where the Pinto is worseâ"by two miles per hour in an infrequent subset of a rare kind of fatal crashâ"mean that the car is defective? A radically redesigned Pinto would not have saved the Ulrich girls. In the trial, the defense successfully argued that Duggar was driving at close to fifty miles per hour, and nothing short of a Sherman tank could have survived the impact of a four-thousand-pound van at full speed."

That is, these were people who cared about the problems they thought were problems. The entire time that Gioia was working on the Pinto case, he drove a Pinto. "Look, the facts of the matter are that in normal use this car is perfectly fine," he said, shrugging. Later, he sold his Pinto to his sister, for six hundred dollars. At the time, the Pinto was being tried in court for the murder of three teen-age girls. But it should be remembered that, in the end, Ford won the Ulrich case. The engineers got the chance to present their evidence, and their testimony carried the day.

I cant possibly quote the whole article but its really quite good: You can believe your simplistic version of events, or you can read the truth as illustrated in a way only malcom gladwell could do.

Comment Re:Just compare the prices of other utilites (Score 1) 206

"The term "natural" implies being OK, renewable, then good to use."

Uh you can redefine words all you want, but don't act like your hipster defintion is correct.

NATURAL: (1) existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial)

This is what happens when you listen to too much marketing, and let the advertisers change language for you. But i bet you think "organic" means something other than "characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms".

Face it, you've been duped, but please don't advise other people on "correct' language use referencing your silly newspeak.

Besides "natural gas" is a noun. Its not implying anything (adjective). Its hardly a propagandists twist like "clean coal". People have been using the noun "natural gas" for hundreds of years.

Comment Re:Stupid (Score 1) 50

Name one country that doesn't mind its military bases being photographed every couple of months and being published for anyone to look at.

If Google is photographing your bases and publishing it, the problem isn't that they published it. The problem is that Google was able to successfully photograph it.

If Google can photograph your base, then your adversary can too. And Google is almost certainly doing things in the nicest way possible, obeying laws, not generally willing to put up with planes being shot down as merely an inevitable cost of business, etc. A real adversary doesn't have those constraints.

Attempting to censor Google is symptom-treating, and really, it's to a comical degree. It's way out there; this isn't merely "slightly stupid." This totally reeks of closing barns doors after horses have gotten out... except that there will be an update in a few months and of course they'll want that blurred too,because they still haven't closed the barn door. It's more like they just don't want people talking about the barn door, that they have already decided they're never going to close.

YOUR HORSES ARE OUT, NUMBNUTS!!! WE ARE LOOKING AT YOUR BARN DOOR BECAUSE IT'S HYSTERICALLY FUNNY THAT YOU KEEP LEAVING IT OPEN, not because we want to steal your horses, which aren't in the barn anyway. If the horses were really still in the barn, then you would have shot down the photographer.

Comment Re:Incoming liberal asspain (Score 1) 838

And maybe what both parties need to get out of the trench warfare that they currently have as well.

Maybe, but maybe not.

The parties only hear two language: votes and money. Whatever they're doing, appears to be working for them (contrary to what you suggest, that they change). You write that it's bad, but on election day I think they are going to hear that what they did was good.

You're giving a treat to the dog (and saying "bad dog") every time he barks, and kicking him (and saying "good dog") whenever he sits and cutely wags his tail. Guess what kind of dog you're going to have.

The only good news I'm seeing in this election, is that somewhere around 10-15% of voters have finally decided to stop actively supporting and approving them, compared to single digits in previous years. But a strong majority still approves, applauds, and rewards.

I think the election night numbers are going to show: Clinton and Trump were excellent choices, America's top two favorites. Prove me wrong, America. I don't care what you say to me; I'm watching to see what you say to them and everyone else.

Comment Re:these new companies trying to get around old la (Score 1) 253

taking into account all of the dealer incentives

The dealer "incentives" or "bonuses" are a result of dealers negotiating a lower price with the manufacturers.

The manufacturer can refuse to negotiate, and then the dealer can refuse to sell their product, and thus lock out their access to those customers.

So the existence of dealers does affect the price of the product; HOWEVER, in the real world, all the incentives are just more profit for the middleman.
The dealers aren't negotiating with the manufacturers for end customers' benefit.

By prohibiting direct sales, not only do the states protect the dealers' business, they give them a very powerful negotiating tool against manufacturers to increase their own profits even more.

Comment Re:these new companies trying to get around old la (Score 1) 253

And then dknj showed up.

You know.... some commentators could potentially be car salespeople or close relative/friend of a car salesman or other stakeholder at one of those dealerships.

Slashdot has many users. Wait around enough, and you're bound to find somebody commenting in support of less-popular positions. :)

Comment Re:these new companies trying to get around old la (Score 1) 253

allows the manufacturer to set the price.

Not only that Manufacturers DO set the price Minimum, AND dealers charge a mark-up.

You will not find dealers selling cars for less than the manufacturer price (After "incentives"), that's for sure,
the dealer would go bankrupt.

All the laws do is prevent manufacturers from setting a Price Maximum.

Prohibiting a price maximum does not protect consumers ---- it protects the salesman leeches who sit between the manufacturer and the end user who take their 20% to 40% cut of the sales price, as extra $$$ you pay, which you would not have to pay if you could purchase direct.

Slashdot Top Deals

Save the whales. Collect the whole set.