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


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

Comment Re:As it's been said... (Score 5, Insightful) 621

A parliament that cannot propose legislation is a parliament in name only. It's a check/balance, I'll give you that, but it's not where the power lies if it cannot propose and effect a change that it wants to.

In the UK, you elect an MP. That MP directly votes on, and can propose legislation. The "other" house, the House of Lords, can only delay any legislation that the House of Commons votes for by returning it with recommendations a maximum of 3 times. After the third time, if the House of Commons again votes it through, it becomes law (subject to Liz' royal assent, but that's not being withheld...).

This is effectively the inverse of the European "parliament". The EU commission decides what laws will be proposed, the parliament (the people who the people elected) then get to horse-trade the deal until the parliament and the commission agree, and then all countries must adopt the law. This is a significant reduction in the power of the people.

As a bonus, the commission are basically immunised against any effects of their political machinations, the only way for a member of the EU commission to be removed is if the parliament unanimously votes to remove all members of the commission at the same time. Yeah... Not gonna happen.

So to summarise: you have an un-sackable body that is the only group who can propose legislation, which gives them the ability to apply enormous pressure to the elected representatives (oh, you want X do you ? Well make sure you vote for our Y and Z and then we'll consider it). And then everyone is forced to accept the results of this as law.

Sorry. That sucks. Given the mission statement of ever closer union, the desire to raise an army etc., and the binding nature of EU law as supreme, the mismatch in democratic power within the EU *should* be concerning IMHO. Whether it's sufficiently concerning to brexit is a different argument, but I think it certainly played its part.

Comment Re:And ? (Score 1) 25

It doesn't have to be tradeable for the protections to stand. It just means the original person/company-if-it-was-an-employee that had the idea, and who filed the patent, now has the legal protections and can therefore attempt to attract investment that the patent encourages.

The idea of selling the patent to someone who has (a) no intent to manufacture or execute on the idea, and (b) simply wants to prevent anyone else from using the idea without paying some sort of (usually, after the fact, and punitive) licensing fees is what is counter to the original idea of what a patent would provide.

Intellectual property can be a thing - there ought to be some reward for working hard and creating something, but patents don't have to be considered normal intellectual property, they can be either a non-tradeable subclass, or simply defined otherwise.

Comment And ? (Score 4, Insightful) 25

Apple patents a lot of things. It's a big company, sure there'll be people at Apple working on AR/VR. There'll also be people there working on colour-coded mouse buttons... There's also the somewhat-nuts situation of "hey we should absolutely patent this in case we ever need it in the future, and we don't want someone else to patent it first".

Personally I think you should have to have demonstrable progress on anything you patent on a yearly basis until it makes it to the market. Also, the whole idea of patents as a tradeable commodity is nuts. If it has to be tradeable, make the patent lifetime be cut in half for every trade...

Comment Re:future 'rust belt' and detroits (Score 1) 100

Yeah, that list is at best misleading.

According to the second chart, Apple doesn't have 1376 employees in the Bay Area. There are more employees ahead of me in the lunch queue at Cafe Macs than that! Apple are building a second campus (and keeping the first) which will on its own hold 13,000 employees. The first campus is supposed to hold ~7000 IIRC, but it's being pushed to about 10,000 right now with people doubling up.

And if you've ever gone over to the Googleplex, you'll see a whole bunch of buildings taking up a pretty huge space. I can't believe there's only 1374 employees there, either.

Comment Re:Actual evidence (Score 4, Insightful) 197

Fuck me, that's the biggest load of bullshit I've read on Slashdot in recent memory.

How one can distil down an enormously complex situation into "too"[sic] paragraphs of dubious authenticity and simultaneously claim to understand the issues involved sufficiently to invoke two strawmen designed to be easily knocked down is beyond me, but hey, knock yourself out.

Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

1) The "representation" for the *people* in the EU is horribly undemocratic. All the people get to elect representatives to is the toothless chamber, ironically named the European Parliament. Forgive me, but any so-called parliament that can't even propose legislation, or even have the final say in enactment of the legislation graciously imposed upon it, is no parliament worth bearing the name. I'm used to the people (or at least our elected representatives) having the power, not an unelected body of career politicians out to line their own (or their own countries) pockets.

2) There is an element of racism in every society on this planet, it's a leftover from the "us" vs "them" tribal nature of our shared history. There were indeed people with money who were advertising and therefore getting their message across this time, and some of those people had a xenophobic and sometimes racist agenda, agreed. To immediately paint all those who voted leave (for whatever reason of their own) as racist, because some other person was being racist in an advertising campaign beggars belief. Clearly critical thinking in whatever country you're from is lacking (and the point stands if that country is Britain).

The issues involved were complex, and it's not anywhere near as simple as "fuck those brown people"; to imply such is frankly insulting. Perhaps those who voted to leave simply chose the probability of lesser prosperity as an acceptable compromise for real self-determination.

Comment Re: Compression (Score 1) 295

That's common wisdom, but I don't think it stands up in the modern world. Here's my bonnie results on a softraid-5 partition with a 10GB test file:

  simon% bonnie -s 10000 -m imac
    File './Bonnie.2543', size: 10485760000
    Writing with putc()...done
    Writing intelligently...done
    Reading with getc()...done
    Reading intelligently...done
    Seeker 3...Seeker 2...Seeker 1...start 'em...done...done...done...
                            -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
                            -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
    Machine GB M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU /sec %CPU
    imac 10 29.0 99.3 531.7 27.7 333.0 18.0 26.9 89.5 460.7 16.1 28342 50.5

Formatting is screwy even in TT mode, but that's saying I can write 530MBytes/sec to, and read 460 MBytes/sec from the SSD RAID attached over TB2 on a 2013 iMac (quad core i7, 3.5GHz).

Now, creating a 530 MB file and compressing it takes:

  simon% dd if=/dev/random of=test.raw bs=555745280 count=1
    1+0 records in
    1+0 records out
    555745280 bytes transferred in 35.273966 secs (15755112 bytes/sec)

  simon% /usr/bin/time gzip -1 test.raw
              14.50 real 14.02 user 0.33 sys

  simon% ls -l test.raw.gz
    -rw-r--r-- 1 simon staff 555914267 Jun 14 08:29 test.raw.gz

... So allowing for (let's be generous) 2 second's time to read and another 2 seconds time to write the files, that leaves ~10 seconds of time to compress the data, even at the lowest compression gzip can muster. I don't think I'd take a 10x slowdown on my RAID array for (at least in this case) an *increase* in the file-size.

Slashdot Top Deals

When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.