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:Hey Slashdot: (Score 2) 131

When you trade money for news, you tend to get the news that makes the most money. It's human nature, unless controlled by regulation. Just as corporations, utilities, colleges, all mostly get financially out of hand unless regulated, because people are mostly naturally greedy. There's scant sense of fairness, and gross excess of "take the market for all it can bear."

Look, news is all mostly biased anyway. Biased by what they cover and what they choose not to cover; by the editor's influence; by the publisher's influence; by the advertiser's influence; by the stockholder's influence; by ridiculous "equal time for superstitious nonsense" policies (because the news consumers are bewildered, so in order to get their money, they are pandered to), etc. I'm just not going to actually pay for more bias.

It's a complete waste of time to put a paywalled link in front of me. Not going to click it if I know what it is; not going to stay if I am snookered into clicking.

For news, here's what I want: facts and relevance to actual news. Not the Kardumbians, not some actor's opinion, not breathless reporting of some lab result as if it was tech coming down next Friday, Politics, cover the candidates and what they say. Even handedly. Don't leave some out (Sanders, cough) don't over-cover some (Trump, cough), don't report bland, content free remarks as if they were incoming legal doom (Clinton, cough)... you get the idea.

Simple enough, you'd think. Just do a good job. But they don't. Okay then, fine. But expecting me to pay for that crap? Not happening. They oughta pay me for having to fact check every goddam thing they write and speak about.

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 2) 100

So that stood for 140 years (including the 1952 Patent Act, where Congress again said that the damages for infringement were the total profit).

But then here, the Court steps in and says "oh, by total profit, it's just the total profit for any component using the design, not the entire article." So, for example, the design on those carpets may only apply to the top fibers and not the mat into which they're woven, so the profits are... well, no one sells just the top fibers, so no one knows. And the justification for this is based on the fact that you can get a utility patent that covers a component. But that's not really a good justification to overturn 140 years of precedent and completely disregard what Congress has said, twice.

And then if that weren't bad enough, the decision ends with "so how do we determine whether the 'article' for purposes of infringement is the entire device or just a component?

The legal dispute centered on whether the term "article of manufacture," on which design patent damages are calculated in U.S. patent law, should be interpreted as a finished product in its entirety, or merely a component in a complex product.

In court papers, Samsung, Apple and the U.S. government all agreed that the term could mean a component.

So even Apple disagrees with you, it should only be the profits of the component.

And courts aren't computers who will happily execute buggy code. If a law leads to an extreme enough outcome (like turning over hundreds of millions of profits over an ambiguous patent infringement that was responsible for only a tiny portion of that profit) they will find a basis to correct the bug.

That would require us to set out a test for identifying the relevant article... But that's hard, so we're not going to do it."

Which is why they're throwing the decision back to lower courts, who will start proposing specific tests in different rulings and cases. Those cases will be appealed, different districts will develop different standards and those will need be be reconciled, and eventually over many different cases a robust test will emerge.

Asking the SCOTUS to develop a test right off the bat is a recipe for a bad precedent.

Comment News flash: Average income is deceiving (Score 0, Flamebait) 157

The average income of 10th through 70th percentile - in other words, most citizens - is $32,245 / year (source, EPI Data Library - Wages by percentile.csv, 2015 [latest] row).

Over 40 million (out of 319 million, or about 12%) of US citizens are going hungry (

The social safety net isn't safe, nor particularly social.

I'm sure we can expect relief from the Trump administration (cough... choke.)

But hey, let's worry about tech interns. My blinders need a workout anyway.

Comment Hey Slashdot: (Score 3, Insightful) 131

Slashdot Editors / owners / etc.:

o Please stop supporting paywalled sites.
o Please stop supporting sites with closed comment sections.

These things are bad for the web and the web's denizens -- of course not for the ethically crippled sites themselves, as we are their product, and both payment up and dissent down are multipliers to their bread and butter.

The paywalled sites are monetizing the news, and that almost always makes for biased reporting.

The closed comment sections make for echo chambers, and that creates an environment where fake news and agitprop flourish.

Same thing to my fellow slashdotters: if you support bad actors in bad behaviors, they will naturally persist. So think about that before you click through the next time someone thrusts a paywalled or comment-bereft site in your face.

Thanks for reading.

Comment Not quite dead yet (Score 1) 379

It means that we are now far more removed from access to the metal to even do a lot of the optimizations that we've done in the past.

Well... no, it means that you are, perhaps. Some of us still write in c or c++, and keep our attention on the details. You can tell you've run into one of us when the many-functioned app you get is a couple megabytes instead of 50, runs faster than the fat ones, and doesn't suffer from black-box bugs inherited from OPC.

I always thought that the user's CPU cycles and memory were things a developer was obligated to treat as the user's valued resource, and so not things to waste.

I know, totally out of date thinking. It's ok, I'm old, I'll die soon. :)

Comment machine code ate my neurons (Score 1) 379

But can you program in Z80 and 6502 machine code?

Yes. But more importantly, I can program in 6809 machine code. Including building all the index modes. Which, back in the day, is one of the things that saved me from having to design in, and then program, CPUs like the 6502 and z80, both of which are seriously anemic by comparison. But I prefer to program in assembler. Because I'm sane.

My affection for the 6809 ran so deep that I wrote the 6809 emulator you'll find here, which required me to implement the entire instruction set from the ground up.

But yeah, I can write machine code for about 10 microprocessors. And you know what? In the day... that was useful. I could read (E)(P)ROM dumps, I could cold-patch... but today, I just wish I could get the brain cells back. :)

Comment Re:Total Coincidence (Score 1) 359

You have a weird model of investigations where someone needs to prove things before actually investigating. It may indeed prove that nothing can be found here. But the only way to know that is to actually examine facts. Declaring that there's nothing to be found without even looking just makes you look biased.

Anyhow, it's not as if we haven't seen pedos in places of power before. Here's a big list:

I'm not going to claim anyone is guilty of anything without proof. However, anyone who starts yelling and screaming for people to stop looking is just going to make themselves look more suspicious. You don't normally get well-connected media types to all jump on a story like this...

Well there ya go. It's gone past slandering and harassing innocent people and now some nut nearly went on a killing rampage because of this "investigation".

Comment Re:Total Coincidence (Score 1) 359

You have a weird model of investigations where someone needs to prove things before actually investigating. It may indeed prove that nothing can be found here. But the only way to know that is to actually examine facts. Declaring that there's nothing to be found without even looking just makes you look biased.

Actually you have it backwards. If you're law enforcement you need evidence before you start looking, otherwise it's a fishing expedition which courts generally disallow.

The reason is fishing expeditions are usually only used against targets law enforcement doesn't like, and as such they don't get fair treatment. Any marginal evidence they do find gets interpreted as proof, and any marginal crimes law enforcement would have ignored otherwise are pursued full-force as a consolation prize (and as a way to break open the original investigation).

That's why the US constitution has so many restrictions on law enforcement and unreasonable searches, because they target unpopular people more than criminals.

Now none of the people investigating "pizzagate" are law enforcement but the same principal applies. The only evidence of a crime is the fact that you're all desperately digging looking for a crime. Yet you're trying to punish the target in the court of public opinion by implying that they're already guilty.

I'm not going to claim anyone is guilty of anything without proof. However, anyone who starts yelling and screaming for people to stop looking is just going to make themselves look more suspicious. You don't normally get well-connected media types to all jump on a story like this...

The problem is by "investigating" you're accusing people of being pedophiles, and you're fully aware that if the media reports on "pizzagate" you're just going to end up with a lot of people thinking that a DNC pedophile ring is a real established thing.

If you're so desperate for the media to cover pizzagate are you equally desperate for the media to cover Trump being sued for raping a 13 year old girl? Because there's much better evidence for that than anything in pizzagate, but the media generally restrained themselves from heavy coverage since they know the evidence wasn't great.

Comment Re:seek medical help, quickly (Score 4, Informative) 359

You claim certainty that Trump is "...ridiculously unprepared and still doesn't really understand what the job entails." but there is a bit of reality you and others like you still have not yet faced:

Barack Obama had never done a productive thing in his life when elected President.

He had a good academic career, many years of experience as a State Legislator, almost 4 years as a US Senator, and was clearly competent and obviously had a strong grasp of policy.

Still he didn't have sufficient Federal experience and paid for it in his first couple years in office.

Everybody has their opinions about whether Trump is good/evil, right/left (Lots of Republicans fear he is too liberal and Democrat-aligned), etc but the simple fact is that the man is far more qualified to be CEO of the US (The President is the top executive job in the US government, the head of the executive branch)

CEO is a very different position than President.

than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and George Bush COMBINED. Trump has been successfully running a multi-billion dollar international corporation through about 40 years of economic ups and downs and shifting legal sands and even across shifting international lines. He has employed tens of thousands of people around the world and has hired and fired, promoted and overseen and monitored hundreds of managers of his many sub units of his vast holdings and has probably more experience in managing a team that manages a complex, hierarchical, distributed entity than ANY US President since Eisenhower.

He's mostly a franchise at this point, licensing his name to other groups to throw on hotels. When he manages things himself bankruptcies and unpaid bills are a typical outcome.

I suspect he's pretty good at real estate, and he may do a decent job of managing his organization, but his chaotic disorganized campaign was a common story line during the election, the most obvious evidence being the two campaign managers he fired and turfing the entire transition team several days after winning.

His managerial abilities are clearly not universally awesome.

He was also caught out many times simply not understanding fairly basic things about different policy areas, what the POTUS did, or even what the constitution said.

Comment Re:Somebody mod this story down (Score 2) 324

That there are Russian shills on the internet is an undeniable fact. That they are on forums steering the conversation when they can is almost assuredly the case- I've seen such cases myself. But that doesn't mean that every piece of right wing journalism is magically fake news nor Russian spies.

There are paid Russian shills for sure, but no matter how extreme I'm always skeptical that any particular poster is a paid Russian shill. As the saying goes, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, and there is no shortage of stupid people on the Internet.

Comment Re:PropOrNot (Score 3, Insightful) 324

To translate what really happened here is:

The Washington Post was duped by a fake article about fake news, and then other publicans were duped by the Washington Post's article about the fake article about fake news.

Not quite a "fake article", but an article based on a report that used a questionable method for identifying "Russian propaganda".

Basically a site was labelled as distributing Russian propaganda if it regularly posted articles that reproduced current Russia propaganda narratives.

That sounds legit, but the problem is that a lot of anti-establishment sites push the same kind of narratives. A story getting pushed by RT as Russia propaganda might also be pushed by an independent site as their own fight against the establishment. And they get labelled as promoting Russia propaganda, which they technically are, but that wasn't their intent.

Journalism is now completely dead, or at least the kind the mainstream media used to produce. Its all now just lazy he-said she-said bullshit where the only filter is the bias of the Journalists and Publications.

You know I actually thought you were being sarcastic when you wrote that first sentence.

The WP article got some secondary reporting, and then it got questioned, typically by those same secondary sources.

Note the first publication in the summary, Rolling Stone, is considered pretty damn progressive. The WP themselves even commented on the matter, though it a much less direct way than I'd like (hopefully their still refining their follow up piece).

Investigative journalism is now only done by independent folk with hidden cameras, and released on youtube. Thats what exposed Clinton's campaign tactics and voter fraud methods, its what exposed and subsequently destroyed ACORN, and so on.

Ahh, so when you say "investigative journalism" you mean actual fake news.

Comment Re:Total Coincidence (Score 1) 359

Those articles barely touch what's been found and "debunk" claims people aren't making.

You can look here for an actual investigation, rather than an NYT or Snopes article that covers one or two items, ignoring the fact that the random images were on the owner's Instagram (now only existing in archives, imagine that).

Now I'm not going to say that he's a pedophile--that hasn't been proven and you won't find many people seriously claiming that. But there's a lot of damned suspicious stuff and people are still investigating.

You left off Wikipedia. Unless it's been edited since then (which is possible) it had barely any mention of it either. Infogalactic has the real info now. And is the Twitter replacement.

I did read it, it's hilarious.

Keep in mind the goal is to claim that all these DNC bigwigs are in some giant pedophile ring.

And the evidence of this is a DNC fundraiser, who owns Comet Ping Pong, was mentioned in an email by a campaign chair (gasp! a campaign chair mentioning a fundraiser!), which apparently means he's at the centre of a pedophile ring.

There's apparently a second restaurant next door, called Besta Pizza, who had as a logo a stylized picture of a pizza slice that apparently had "pedo symbols" in the logo. Because secret pedophile rings advertising it in their friggin logo is apparently more likely than someone unintentionally making something that reminds you of a super-obscure image.

Now here is where your "actual investigation" comes in with the top rated "smoking gun" article going after not people from the DNC, not the Comet Ping Pong that was super-tangentially connected to the DNC, but a restaurant that happened to be next door to Comet Ping Pong and happened to have a logo that reminded someone of some super-obscure "pedo symbols".

So the "investigation" is a massive "X was accused of Y, and X has some sort of relationship with Z, so Z is guilty of Y." And via this investigation technique they manage to implicate... "Besta World Group" which they can't actually connect to "Besta Pizza"... but two brands in completely different industries on different sides of the planet using the word "Besta" in their name? Oh they must be connected!!!

I'm sorry that is not an investigation, that's someone desperately digging for dirt and failing in spectacular fashion.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn