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:What complete nonsense (Score 1) 253

Of course, heaviness means inertia, but travelling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, and inertia doesn't seem to be an impediment in any of the movies.

And yet TIE Fighters and X-Wings still zip around doing gee-whiz flips and turns while Imperial Star Destroyers and other big ships plod along.

Maybe consistency of physics isn't an impediment to movies either?

Comment Re:Store-and-forward spyware (Score 1) 35

Hold on a second, to perform a search you have to send the query off to the search engine (probably Google). So, by intent, the engine has to get your query in order to provide the correct results.

Your claim is that it's helping them spy by giving them access to something that you already had the intent of giving them.

Comment Re: Unlimited? (Score 1) 196

Small cells negate the "limited amount of spectrum" argument. It's a financial + logistical + political/regulatory limitation, not a technical one.

Technology will eventually advance to the point that the financial consideration is less important. We're already working with beam-forming -- a technology that's existed for decades, in radar applications -- for instance. Wireless is the future, no matter what the naysayers think, and if you're still thinking of "spectrum" as the limiting factor you're behind the curve. Makes me think of the folks who deploy IPv6 for the first time and start worrying about the "waste" of addresses.

Comment Re:Unlimited? (Score 1) 196

There's no technical reason why an LTE network can't be engineered to provide truly unlimited data with acceptable speeds in most instances. There is, however, a financial reason, plus the usual regulatory/political concerns that get in the way of new cell sites. It's worth noting that T-Mobile manages to offer unlimited with an asterisk (video throttled to 1.5Mbps) and in many cases delivers superior speed than Verizon, so it's clearly POSSIBLE and PROFITABLE to use as a business model.

In rural/fixed-wireless settings LTE is actually cheaper than DSL/cable and the favorable contention ratios (i.e., low population density) make unlimited possible with today's network. It's a mystery to me why they won't offer an unlimited product for this market segment at least; it would be the death blow for satellite internet.

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 432

I don't know about law in any of the US, but in the UK: a private letter is considered to be "published", for libel purposes, the moment it is opened (by someone other than the party being libelled, or someone acting as their agent and with their express permission to open it)

Yes. It is roughly the same in the U.S. See HERE, in the section headed "Publication".

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 432

With the intent to cause damage. Look it up. They damaged party has to prove intent. Which is why there are almost never successful; libel or slander cases in the US.

This is not true. At least in most states, intent to harm is not required.

What IS usually required is to show that the accused knew, or reasonably should have known, that the statement was false.

That is not quite the same thing.

Comment Re:This. Libel need not be public, but must be unt (Score 1) 432

It's amazing to me how many people don't get the difference between stating an opinion and stating something as fact. I am thinking of a certain Slashdot frequenter who fits that profile.

There is a great deal of legal precedent in that regard. For example, calling someone "an ass" or similar is pretty definitely an opinion, even if it's stated as though it were fact: "You're an ass."

In college law classes there is a rather famous case study from, I think, the 17th century.

A guest at an inn told the innkeeper: "My horse can pisse better ale than you serve here."

The innkeeper sued the customer for slander. The judge ruled: "The accused did not slander the innkeeper. He complimented his horse."

So, while there are lines as to what is acceptable speech and what is not, it pays to be cognizant of where those lines are. And many people have no clue.

Comment Re: Except it doesn't work properly (Score 4, Insightful) 129

it has garbage collection, it doesn't carry the baggage of a runtime around with it

Sigh. Of course it has a runtime. Where else would the garbage collection that you just mentioned be implemented? Or GoRoutines. Or reflection.

I think you're confusing not having a runtime with having the Go compiler statically link the runtime into each executable. That has some benefits that you were alluding to (e.g. "no baggage") but it also has drawbacks such as increased executable size, increased memory usage (with a dynamic runtime, different instances all share the same library in memory), decreased cache usage (since if you have two Go executables, they are constantly evicting each others runtimes from cache, even though they are identical and could be shared) and the maintenance issues having to recompile to take advantage of security/bug/performance improvements in the runtime itself.

I have no issue if you claim that in some (your) use cases the advantages of a statically compiled runtime are worth the disadvantages. But that's not the same as claiming that either the runtime doesn't exist or that it's always advantageous.

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 4, Informative) 432

This is quite incorrect. I would say dangerously incorrect. At least in most of the U.S.

In general, actionable defamation (of which libel and slander are particular examples) only requires that you express untrue, damaging things to someone other than the party you are referring to. There is NO specific requirement that it be public.

And "damage" is used loosely here. Damage could mean damage to their career, or damage to their public reputation, or even just damage to a single friend's opinion of them.

If you wrote untrue, damaging things in a document to your HR department, that could definitely be considered libel, and would likely be actionable. Specific cases vary, but again in general.

Of course, truth is (again in general... most U.S. states) an absolute defense. So if what you wrote is true and you can demonstrate that it is, by a preponderance of evidence, then you're probably safe. But you'd better have that evidence.

In addition, most corporations have as part of their employment conditions that you can't sue the company or other employees as a result of negative opinions expressed as part of "official" company communications, such as an employee review or exit interview.

Again in the U.S., that is simply not true. "Most" corporations do NOT have such a clause in their contract, and there is a very strong push to stop that practice in those states where it is still allowed. Because in some states such clauses are specifically prohibited by law, and the list of those states is growing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your mode of life will be changed to EBCDIC.

Working...