Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:No conception of money (Score 1) 160

Whether or not he lives in a "money-free fantasy land", it's quite clear that you don't understand the main issue here, which is really about privacy.

Newspaper reading never was about privacy ever. The paper you buy at the front of the train station is anonymous, true. But the subscription for your local paper most certainly isn't. The business model of all newspapers with ads precludes any form of privacy whatsoever. Just cannot exist in this world simply cause no one would pay the price of a paper without ads: about triple the current price, and online ads must be targetable and be able to build a profile of a single reader or they are worthless.

Comment RMS doesn't understand how newspapers work (Score 1) 160

What RMS wants is logical, good for society, etc. but totally nonpractical and hasn't got a snowballs chance of working since he doesn't understand or ignore how newspapers, print and online both, make their money.

A newspaper hasn't been financed by the price of the paper in your local 7-11 for decades now. that nickel and dime is paying for distribution and maybe the cost of printing at most. The actual money, the biggest part of the cost producing a newspaper has been financed for ages with advertising. Ads from big and small companies but also from classifieds, death notices by relatives (not sure if that custom exists in the US), etc.

So ads are more important than the actual price paid for the traditional papers on dead trees. Now let's move on to the online version of the paper: the pretty much only thing of value one gets from online ads is to be able to directly identify the one watching the ad. To be able to exactly pinpoint the person and then in turn creating a very detailed profile about this person.
So the online newspaper needs to do the same calculation of ads as main income and subscription price, or some other pay per view, as only very secondary or else the subscription will be so outrageous, no one will ever buy one. It would cost probably two or three times as high without ads than the dead tree paper version for the privilege of reading it on your IPad. Very few subscribers indeed for such a thing.

Since the ads however demand a detailed profile as seen above, no newspaoper can ever deliver what RMS here wants.

Comment Awful article (Score 5, Informative) 113

This article is awful, both here on slashdot and pcworld. It shows that neither site is suitable for reporting on tech or IT journalism.

TSM doesn't design chips, they build them. Others design the chips, hand over that design to TSMC to get actual hardware back. TheRegister correctly reports this "bult by TSMC"
8MB SDRAM and 1GB DDR3 RAM. That is the same thing! DDR3 is a form of SDRAM and of course SDRAM makes no sense whatsoever here. Instead again, TheRegister correctly reports: 8GB SRAM, which is typically used for caching purposes: small size but fast, just like L1 to L3 caches in most/all CPUs which are also for caching.

Neither slashdot nor pcworld senior editor can correctly transcribe a simple news tidbit from another site.

Comment This is pseudo research/news (Score 2) 177

Of course you can trick any sensor invented by man some way or other. That's nothing new. We even know tons of ways to trick the sensors made by god/nature aka our eyes as well. Shine a bright light into them for $10 or maybe $100 and the driver will be forced to drive blind. Or you can have a $0 natural snow storm and the driver will also be on literally very dangerous ground: zero visibility and icy roads.

The point is not that either can be fooled, the point is, is the mechanical sensor better or at least equal to mark I eyeball? Is the program doing the automatic driving at least as good as an average driver? as good as the best driver possible?

Submission + - Wasserman Schultz won't Speak at Dem Convention After Wikileaks Revelations ( writes: CNN reports that the head of the Democratic National Committee will not speak at the party's convention next week, a decision reached by party officials Saturday after emails surfaced that raised questions about the committee's impartiality during the Democratic primary. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose stewardship of the DNC has been under fire through most of the presidential primary process, will not have a major speaking role in an effort "to keep the peace" in the party, a Democrat familiar with the decision said. The revelation comes following the release of nearly 20,000 emails. One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Bernie Sanders' faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters. Another seems to depict an attorney advising the committee on how to defend Hillary Clinton against an accusation by the Sanders campaign of not living up to a joint fundraising agreement.

Comment Empty Words (Score 3, Insightful) 412

He knows, we know, he will never have to make good on any of his campaign promises or boasts. He is 100% certain to lose the election.
He can promise anything he wants and it's meaningless. So why not go for the big ones: abolish the IRS but bring a efficient and fair tax enforcement, dismantle the Fed and have a strong monetary policy, kill off Wall Street and at the same time promote free enterprise, yadda, yadda.

Singling out only the universally unpopular NSA ist what a coward would do.

Comment Awesome turn around time on the bugfixing (Score 1) 211

They found the problem in 2012 and it took until 2016 to actually fix this relatively minor problem with big consequences?
Apparently the state of Washington has outsourced this software and its maintenance to their biggest taxpayer, Microsoft. No other way there is any reason to wait for a bugfix for four years.

Comment Non Issue (Score 4, Insightful) 302

Yes the sealevels will rise, but they already rise with every hurricane or tides of the moon.
After Fukushima everyone knows that you need big ass dams, flood walls, protected and working backup generators etc.

If you build a 10m high floodwall or a 11m high one to also protect against global warming induced sea level rise simply doesn't really matter. If someone hasn't already built said 10-15m high flood wall, it's not global warming that is an issue but the regulatory commission in your country. A much more immediate problem too.

Comment Re:At least 2 reasons why this is not a good stanc (Score 3, Insightful) 108

A university is not a government agency with special powers against other citizens.
Law enforcement ist allowed to do these things only with the approval of the judiciary too. Which they apparently didn't get. 4th amendment, computer security laws and all thoes pesky things.

Comment At least 2 reasons why this is not a good stance (Score 4, Interesting) 108

for the FBI and the university to take:
If they are allowed to decrypt messages which are passing through "their" property, then:
a) Pay TV hackers must be allowed to decrypt the Pay TV signals ending at the cable box or coming from a satellite
b) Any ISP or whoever owns a router which transmits encrypted traffic is allowed to decrypt and read it.

Either the FBI and the university have to be punished like cable signal hackers and other bad guys, or the law covering those offenses is not worth the paper.

Slashdot Top Deals

Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?