Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment NPD (Score 1) 1

He has NPD. Look it up. Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It's in the DSM-V. Several mental health professionals have publicly said this and one has even talked about keeping videos of him because he's such a textbook case.

Doesn't take much research or following the newsfeeds to have seen this.

Comment Re:Overpriced (Score 1) 195

I suspect that The Tetris Company would prefer not to license any early versions of the game.

They standardized it just a few years after the NES / Gameboy era to make games that used the Tetris name more uniform and frankly better.

Those standardizations included:

* The randomizer algorithm must be the "bag random" type. This prevents you from being starved for any one shape for more than 10 pieces and ensures you'll never get the same piece more than twice in a row.
* They must include the classic Tetris theme song
* The colors are standardized. L is always a certain color Square is another color, backwards L is a different standard color, etc. This standard is adhered to whether it's on the Wii, the Xbox, in the arcade, or on the Sega Saturn.
* There must be a "hold" space where you can take the current piece and hold it in reserve, or swap it for the one currently in reserve.

There are others, but those are it off the top of my head. The NES Tetris misses on the colors, the randomizer, and the hold space if memory serves. It's frankly a bad implementation (but they all were in that era).

Comment Re:Companies are not people (Score 1) 415

You do not lose your rights to free speech and petitioning the government if you form a corporation. These rights are not taken away. A corporation does not inherently have rights. You still do.

Exactly. But whether you should be allowed to use the machinery of a limited liability company to spread those views (even if you own a majority of the shares), that's a different ball of wax altogether.

Just because you're allowed to publicly state your opinion doesn't mean you're allowed to use a megaphone to do it at all hours of the night. And funnily enough, when the police writes you a citation, no-one seems to think that your first amendment rights were infringed (much) in the process. (Yes, that's not a terribly good analogy, but it does show that in many circumstances, while you're allowed your opinion, the means to spread it however you want aren't necessarily allowed).

Comment Re:He was the kind of pres people THINK they want. (Score 1) 237

Had two of the eight helicopters in Operation Eagle Claw failed instead of three, he'd be remembered very differently.

Well, that's not necessarily true. Eagle Claw was a horribly complex affair that probably wouldn't have worked anyway. It's highly probable, that with more helicopters available it would just have failed later, with more spectacular casualties.

As a matter of fact, the failure led to sweeping changes in the US special operations community, leading directly to the establishment of SOCOM. This wouldn't have happened if the operation had failed just because of a couple of helicopters with poor maintenance record. Instead the powers that be could no longer ignore the glaring problems and lack of capability at all levels of the US military establishment when it came to operations like this, and a whole command was established to deal with them.

Comment Re:Do your job (Score 1) 311

I'm not really sure it matters much, truth be told. Legally owned guns aren't used in crimes much, so deaths (not including suicides) are basically anomalies.

Just for comparison I ran the numbers of deaths versus number of gang members comparing the US and Sweden, and, between thumb and forefinger, they correlate very well. The reason we're having so much better murder rater figures than you then being that we have so much fewer gangs and gang members. The ones we do have though seem to shoot each other at about the same frequency.

Of course our gun legislation is much, much stricter than yours. As it happens though, the guns used in "the settling of scores between known criminals" aren't legally owned, have never been legally owned, and are of types that couldn't be legally owned (for the most part). So restricting legal guns would have little to no impact on that.

So, in summary, there's much to suggest you have many severe problems, but that legal gun ownership doesn't much factor into the equation. It doesn't much in any other country in the west so it's not a big stretch.

So if you want to turn it around, focusing on guns is the lazy analysis and solution. In all probability, even an Australian/UK "ban" wouldn't change much at all.

Comment Re:Do your job (Score 1) 311

If Clinton's assault weapon ban been in force, ... many police would be alive right now.

Reports are that Micah Johnson was armed with an SKS. The SKS wasn't affected by the "Clinton assault weapon ban" as it didn't (by and large) fit the criteria set out. As a matter of fact it's still legal in California...

But it doesn't really matter. A shotgun and and a can of gasoline would let you do the same thing. Or just the can of gasoline.

So, if you think you'll change anything material by outlawing semi automatic long guns with large capacity magazines, my money is on you waking up very disappointed one day. Remember, after all, and the statistics are very clear on this: "Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people..." Though not as much as you used to. Your rates are declining and that's despite owning more guns than ever.

Comment Re:Abusive government (Score 1) 496

Unless you mean the ASVAB test we took before going to boot camp

Bingo! All armed forces have a similar test (I took a similar one here in Sweden when mustering) and since they measure (at least) crystallised intelligence, they can be, and have been, correlated with more traditional intelligence tests.

Since many take such tests, they're a useful source of data for many questions about how mental aptitude is affected by various factors. When we scrapped national service here in Sweden in 2010, it was lamented by researchers in the area, as they no longer would have access to data from all males aged 18 every year.

And the military spends quite some effort in identifying the "geniuses" as they are few and far between, and you don't want them to end up in tents, but in more qualified positions (babying missile electronics and whatnot). Cannon fodder is, relatively speaking, much easier to come by.

Comment Re:systemd rocks! (Score 1) 179

Anyway - a little off-topic... let me try to pull it back on topic. Slack was the first distro I ever loaded back in the 90s. I downloaded it to several (20ish?) 3.5" disks at my job (after school job doing tech support at a local ISP)... got them all home and tried to install it and guess what? Yep. One of those disks was corrupted. Took two more tries before I was able to get it going... but my mind was permanently BLOWN once I got it working :-)

That happened to all of us I think. At least I haven't met anyone that it didn't happen to. You sat there copying your floppies (the cheapest available, since you were poor) at uni and when trying to install back home number 23 was always broken. So back to school in the rain. Twice! :-)

Comment Re: Unsurprising (Score 1) 441

Just...no. There is a fixed amount of energy available to airborne objects in a dogfight, and most of it comes from the initial velocities of the objects at the start of the encounter.

Which is (somewhat) true and doesn't invalidate what the original poster said. The implications means you're both right and both wrong, as it means that close in a missile can have a manoeuvring advantage as it's slow, has lots of engine thrust left (no, it's not only the initial energy that counts, far from it, a slow missile manoeuvres by pointing it's motor in the opposite direction of travel). That said, since it's chasing something, it has to be able to pull much higher Gs to just keep up.

At longer BWR ranges though, the tide turns. The missile has burned out and is moving very fast, so an aircraft with any agility (fighter) can easily outmanoeuvre the missile by just turning perpendicular to the missile's flight path--since the missile has to pull a large lead if it is to have any hope of hitting the aircraft--and then make an out of plane manoeuvre (dive) when the missile has committed. It'll overshoot by a "mile".

This is an inherent problem with long range missiles today, i.e. they're too fast and has no ability to manoeuvre at the end of their range envelope. (Note that it's not a question of energy, they have plenty of energy, they just can't turn it into useful work.)

The hypothetic, non-disposable, missiles you hypothesise about, are just that for now, i.e. hypothetical, and I can't see that anybody would bother with them, for a whole host of reasons.

While I have no doubt that "missiles" will eventually soundly beat fighters and make them in some sense obsolete, we won't be calling them "missiles" at that point, but "drones", and they'll look much more like today's fighters than today's missiles. The basic laws of aerodynamics will see to that. A rocket motor in a tube, ain't it...

Comment Re:4G is fast enough (Score 1) 38

It worked fine when I had WiMax. LTE would not be available today if it were not for WiMax lighting a fire under the rear ends of the 3G people. They did an effective job of tying up the carriers in order to kill WiMax (in the US and Europe at least). This is why LTE falls so short of its design targets. It was rushed out to crush the threat from WiMax.

Well, I think you're probably a bit too coloured by your background. I was at the other side, i.e. the telecoms side, and while it is true that 3G+ and 4G standards were affected by WiMax, and while WiMax was initially very scary, when we learned of the standard we all let out a collective sigh of relief.

The main thing we were "afraid" of was cost, i.e. that WiMax would come out much cheaper, and sweep away the high margins of telecoms over night. The way to do that would have been the same way that datacom beat telecom, i.e. make do with much less. Cut away lots of the added features that no-one really wanted badly enough to pay for anyway, and do the cheap and easy 80% instead.

The way to do that with WiMax would have been to cut away mobility and roaming. Having to communicate with a moving terminal (both within a cell and between cells) is what adds all the fundamental complexity to wireless telecoms. If you cut away those two to start, then the problem becomes much simpler. But of course, WiMax suffered from the "second systems effect" compared to WiFi. So WiMax tried to be everything that mobile telecoms already was. They added all the complexities to the standard and hence missed the boat. As soon as that was realised, we realised that there wasn't really any "threat" per se. They'd need years to get to where we were already at, and they'd have to spend the same money/resources to get there.

Now of course, I'm also coloured by my background from building mobile internet boxes for Ericsson way back when, and I would actually have liked WiMax to shake things up a little (coming from the datacom side myself), but it's no accident that while the WiFi side is alive and healthy, WiMax went the way of the Dodo fast.

Oh and P.S. with current 4G you have exactly what you ask for. I.e. data with IP based voice on top. If anybody had implemented that, which most/many haven't. Most nets are actually 4G data only with no support for IPMMS, falling back to 3G for voice. 3G is the last system with separate voice and data channels.

Comment Re:frist post (Score 1) 569

Tell me about an individual going into a night club and killing 50 people with a pocket knife.

If we substitute knife for petrol and bus for night club, will that do? (A knife or axe in that scenario comes in handy to stop and deter being bum rushed from the people who, understandably, aren't too keen on being burned.)

After all, guns don't kill people, Americans with guns kill people. And in China it's petrol instead (and it's not an isolated incident). So, I'm not sure that reducing the access to guns in the US would make much of a difference.

We have very strict gun legislation here in Sweden, and that hasn't stopped criminals from getting AK47's with which to shoot up their neighbourhoods. (In fact when I control for the number of gang members, Swedish and US gun violence looks very similar. We just don't have nearly as many gang members).

So, whether you look at mass shootings or general level of violence, I agree you have a problem, but I'm unconvinced you have a gun problem per se. (And even if you banned the ownership of guns overnight, what would you do with the roughly one gun per person in the US that are already out there? They're not going to go away.)

Comment That's how it works here in Sweden (Score 1) 184

Yes, that's how it works here in Sweden, and has for the last decade or so.

Of course an open network allows you to switch ISP just by calling them (or indeed using a web page), and of course no equipment needs to be changed, what would be the point of an open fiber network if it did?

The fibre company (used to be city owned, but is now private) run the fiber network including end-points (CPE) and the ISPs deliver service. I can currently choose between eight different ISPs.

But yes, it takes several hours to change ISP, can't see why I'd need it to go faster though. (And of course, if you've ordered optional extras like IP-TV, instead of the CATV that comes with the system, that equipment has to be changed, but that's more on you.)

Comment Re:Summary is a bit over the top (Score 0, Troll) 119

No kidding. Taliban blowing up the Bamiyan Buddhas = Cultural Vandalism. ISIS in Palmyra = Cultural Vandalism. Company charging for services rendered so they do not go out of business = I dunno, a better business model than their older one? Its not cultural vandalism though.

Why not? The Buddhas were the Taliabans to destroy, right? Same with Palmyra. ISIS took it fair and square, so why shouldn't they be allowed to blow it up to their hearts content? You're not against private ownership and the rights to do as you see fit with what you own, right? Right?

I mean, it's a lot cheaper to provide a few servers, than it is to make sure that Palmyra doesn't fall over on its own accord. Upkeep ain't cheap you know, just keeping the looter and vandals away is a serious burden, so why should ISIS have to pay for that, when they clearly don't want it to begin with and have a new "business model"?

So it's rather simple really, and I don't see what all the whining is about.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a tiny little bit more complicated than that...

(Warning: The above post may contain sarcasm...)

Comment Re:title seems to be misleading, at best. (Score 1) 263

They don't need to do that, see: Germany, Portugal, Denmark as a few examples. Neither of them has as many base load plants as they need base load.

No, but that's because they use other countries plants (France, Spain, and Sweden/Norway respectively). Without ties into those other grids, they'd be in trouble. In fact, it's difficult to say one thing or another based on a single country in Europe as our grids have such a high degree of interconnection.

So, they couldn't get away with what they're doing without the rest of us picking up the slack. Denmark and Germany in particular are often pushed into negative pricing, i.e. they have to pay us to get rid of their excess electricity. Likewise when it comes to import. (And don't forget that Germany is still ca 50% coal. Dirty, destructive brown stuff at that.)

Slashdot Top Deals

As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie