Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:The BBC isn't state sponsored media? I must be (Score 4, Informative) 250

It seems like you have a perspective problem. If you're used to only having self-funded or advertising-funded media, then all "state-funded" media must be the same. But they're not.

The BBC collects its license fee itself. If you don't feel like funding the BBC, don't buy a TV. RT is funded centrally from tax money. Russian income tax pays for it whether you have a TV or not.

The Russian government owns RT. The British government does not own the BBC. At best, they own the decision about which private corporation has the right to be the national broadcaster and could take that away from the BBC.

The Russian government decides at all levels who runs RT, as it owns it. The UK government only gets to decide the BBC's director general and its charter; much like shareholders in a private company, the UK government is an outsider with a stake in the BBC, rather than the operator.

The Russian government likely tells RT what to say. The BBC frequently says things the the UK government doesn't want broadcast and has to take the BBC to court because it has no control over what the BBC says beyond "we might recommend to the independent review body that they cut your funding in 2016".

If the BBC was located in Russia and acted the way it does in Britain, the Russian government would have closed it down and murdered its chief executive by now.

The BBC's equivalent to RT is a small part of the BBC called the World Service - this is not the same as BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the BBC. The World Service has always been funded directly by the state, from taxes, but from 2014 onwards the BBC has to pay for it by itself.

Comment Re:Erosion of the Commons (Score 1) 544

Being on your property versus not being on your property - this is your only bargaining chip.

If the public wants to remain on your property, then they can submit to your conditions, otherwise they simply have to walk away.

You can't create an outstanding liability that attaches to them even if they reject the conditions, so you can't force people to forfeit something just because they were on your land. (However, if they damage something while trespassing, you can take them to (civil) court to force them to pay for repairs. The court will decide if your claims are reasonable.)

Comment Re:Erosion of the Commons (Score 1) 544

No, what's being bargained is that you are giving permission for the public to be on your property if they follow your conditions.

If they don't, they simply lack your permission to be on your property, they are not liable to pay you £1000.

In England/Wales, they are committing trespass, and you may use reasonable force to remove them from your property.

Comment Re:Curious (Score 1) 146

Most of these stores are authorised Apple resellers.

Apple actually own and run all the Apple Stores, so an Apple Store won't appear in your city unless Apple decide to open one. It's not possible to "pay up for the logo rights" - Apple will never ask someone to open an Apple Store, they will open the Apple Store themselves. But only if they want to.

Comment Re:Can't delete things on the internet (Score 1) 245

You have to visit the site at least once, by clicking on the search result. Then Google is satisfied you're blocking the page because you went to it and didn't like what you saw.

You've probably been able to block bad sites before (like expertsexchange.com) because Google knows you've clicked on their results before.

Comment Re:Unlikely (Score 3, Informative) 272

I don't think Murdoch's company was the only one to use phone hacking.

Many papers did, through arms-length dealing with private detectives.

The UK government caught some detectives stealing private information, and published which newspapers were buying it Read page 11 of this report.

The top three newspaper companies buying illegal information were Trinity Mirror (1679 times), Daily Mail and General Trust (1387 times), then News International (only 256 times).

It's not the quantity of hacking, but who got hacked. The public didn't really care about celebrities being hacked, but went apeshit when they heard a little girl got hacked.

Comment Re:End-to-end (Score 1) 77

Cell networks have the same need for time-critical end-to-end delivery as fixed line networks, and thus have a very similar architecture. They don't look anything like IP networks.

Cell sites place calls on behalf of the mobile, and talk with other cell sites to handover calls in progress as the mobile passes through. They have to be trusted to do that.

GSM encryption works on the basis that the company who issued the SIM card also knows the secret keys inside the SIM card. That way, both ends can synchronise encryption/decryption, even if packets are lost and not re-transmitted. Public-key encryption almost invariably uses a block cipher that can't do that. What use is that to a phone network?

Comment Re:But why? (Score 1) 251

Boycott the paper! But I don't suppose the readership will.

If it matters to them, they will.

In 1989, in Liverpool, a crowd crush killed 96 people and injured over 700. Murdoch's The Sun headline the next day insulted the dead with appalling lies.

The Sun used to sell about 212,000 copies a day in Liverpool (population 500,000), it now sells about 12,000. 200,000 less newspapers per day, every weekday, for the past 22 years: 1.1 billion copies boycotted. That's what I call a boycott!

In 2008, a TV show tried to give away copies of The Sun in Liverpool, nobody would accept one. So they set them on fire instead.

Comment Re:Whoa (Score 1) 68

Firefox doesn't use that much RAM under normal conditions.

Yes it does. Mozilla know this and have an entire team of people addressing Firefox 4 memory usage issues. They're looking at 18 P1 bugs, 84 total.

My Firefox is has 1.3GB mapped, but is only using 300MB right now (according to the very useful about:memory)... that's a serious fragmentation problem, because as far as my operating system is concerned, that's a 1.3GB program, not a 300MB program.

Slashdot Top Deals

I think there's a world market for about five computers. -- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943