Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Soon (Score 3, Interesting) 102

Our network operations room has a debian 12 box with a pair of radeon cards that drives six 4k tv's and an ancient old 1080p monitor to display network graphs and video surveillance feeds. We run a different DPI on the 1080p one.

I don't recall it being hard to get running. The worst thing for us was figuring out the wacky KDE system of each permutation of monitors having it's own physical layout config. Drove us crazy as we got each additional TV connected.

Comment Re:But iCANn think of many reasons to resist capit (Score 2, Insightful) 18

There's always been a section of borderline mentally ill crazies on slashdot.

I wonder sometimes what sort of lives those guys ended up living from the mid 2000s that were posting the netcraft copypasta, enraged rants about open sores and Lunix etc.

Perhaps trolling a technical community was the least harmful thing they could have been doing with their unreleased anger.

Comment Re:No One Will Follow Them (Score 0) 28

The EU does not mess around when it comes to financial penalties for privacy and tech monopoly type things.

Which is exactly the reason why they passed these laws. They have no meaningful AI innovation: all substantial innovation is happening in the U.S.

In other words: once again, the EUSSR is trying to leach money out of US companies using their "these laws are to protect the children" adagium.

This is getting really old really quick.

Comment Re:Banned is banned (Score 1) 32

Any prosecution that relied on banned facial recognition should be thrown out and sentences vacated. Fruit of the poison tree.

And any prosecutor worth their salt will explain to you that a city council enacting a policy banning a specific investigative method does not mean that it is unlawful for the police to actually use it as evidence during a criminal trial.

Also, I guess you are not familiar with the many exceptions to the poisonous tree doctrine.

Comment Re:Just call it for what it is... (Score 1) 48

Your statement ascribes to them "wants", which is an intention, which you cannot observe as fact except if they have said so (which they have not done).

People way smarter than you or me have solved that problem a long time ago. Courts determine intent (even past intent) based on observable actions. This is especially true in murder cases: someone pointing a gun at another's head and firing the trigger is a pretty good indication that the murderer intended to kill, even though they say it's just an accident.

Here, we observe that the EUSSR, like they did in the past, open an investigation into a wealthy foreign entity, and we know from the past that their true intention is to enrich their own coffers.

Comment Re:Correlation vs causation (Score 1) 34

You clearly don't understand how science is done. Real scientists always look at possible weaknesses in their studies and disclose them. You've clearly only have experience on the Internet where everyone is always 100% right and certain.

Sure, I only have two grad degrees and am working on my third one. Yeah, I know nothing about scientific research. At all. Especially data. Totally clueless.

Nope nope nope, I recognize a flawed study written only to make headlines and get citations when I see one.

Slashdot Top Deals

Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous

Working...