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 Why didn't they.... (Score 1) 208

... when the decided that they wanted a monopoly on printer cartridges, and not wanting people to get refills, start manufacturing the printers and cartridges differently, so that the act of installing it in the printer or removing it after installation physically alters the cartridge in some way so that after you remove it, you physically cannot reinstall it again. There are numerous ways this could be done. One way that comes to mind is to use a breakaway tab that is used to lock that cartridge in place, but which must be broken off to remove the cartridge. They patent the tab which secures the cartridge in place so that if someone tries to make an otherwise compatible cartridge with a reusable tab, they are guilty of patent infringement. If there were legitimate problems with the cartridge that would warrant a refund or replacement that were not discovered until after it was installed, those cases could probably be handled individually by the manufacturer. This could be done by having a shipping label to send it back (postage paid by the receiver) supplied in each cartridge box that allows you to ship defective cartridges to them for replacement (or depleted cartridges for recycling). There are some printer companies that already do this for their cartridges for recycling purposes, so conceptually the mechanism is already in place for this.

The manufacturer could easily determine if a cartridge for which replacement is requested *actually* warranted replacement if the consumer supplies a brief letter stating what was wrong with the product and why it was not fit for purpose.

The cartridges would further be clearly labeled "for limited use only", and the printers that use them would be similarly clearly labeled to the effect that they require only the limited use cartridges of the given brand.

This equips consumers with the information necessary for them to make an informed decision about whether they want to use such a printer and its cartridges, and allows manufacturers to control what products are used in theirs without having to rely on stupid-ass shit laws like the DMCA or something similar.

Comment Uh.... what? (Score 5, Insightful) 191

...required visa applicants to hand over all phone numbers, email addresses, and social media accounts that they have used in the past


Personally, I know I wouldn't even be able to begin to comply with this kind of demand. I don't remember all of the old phone numbers I've had. All social media accounts? Does that include aliases on bulletin board systems from the 1980's? Again, I couldn't comply because I don't remember them all. I probably have about a half dozen expired email accounts at old internet service providers, some of which don't even exist anymore, where I can maybe remember half of them.

Comment Re:Use A Big Pipe (Score 1) 171

The disadvantage of many small pipes is that if they are too small, they may not be useful for some purposes, and if you make them too large, you could end up with lots of wasted space when some cables don't need that much room, and you will generally run out of available conduits to put new cables into sooner than if all of the cables had just been in a single much larger pipe. If you make them different sizes, then you create the risk running out of a pipe size if one size is used too often.

If the ratio of the cross sectional area of the available room in the common pipe to the cross sectional area of the cable you intend to run through it is high enough, damage to the cabling you want to run through or any adjacent wires is actually very unlikely to be a concern. Companies could easily add a more protective layering on their cables that would add to its size no more than a customized conduit would to further protect them... which is still going to be cheaper than digging a hole just to run some new conduit.

Comment Re:Don't remove, fill out remaining options (Score 1) 262

Actually, some of those could actually be pretty useful. An option to close tabs unvisited in the past x minutes would be particularly nice to have (where x is a user-configured value).

I suspect, however, that this kind of functionality can be added via plugin extensions to the browser, and may not need to be in the browser code.

Comment If the universe is a simulation.... (Score 1) 412

.... then the evidence for it is in the laws of physics themselves, since the simulation would follow a fixed set of rules, what we happen to call the "laws of physics" would just be our perceived way of modelling the behaviour in the universe that we observe. The reason we wouldn't find anomalies in a properly done simulation is because the simulation runs on a set of rules that do not contain any way to perceive such an anomaly, even if it were to happen, and we, as part of that simulation are still constrained to operate within the parameters that are defined by the simulation. Even if what we call free will itself were somehow modelled within that simulation, we could no more "free-will" ourselves to think beyond the simulation that we could "free-will" ourselves to be in an alternative place and time than that which we appear to be living in. the hypothesis that the universe is a simulation is just as unfalsifiable as the notion that there is a god. You can't disprove the existence of something whose scope exceeds the boundaries of what is humanly possible to define. It therefore cannot be studied in any useful scientific way any more than a theistic assertion may be.

Comment Re:I've noticed that, but something else interesti (Score 3, Interesting) 158

My favorite GPS screwup was one where we were driving south on an overpass, and the gps system told us to turn left to get onto the E/W route that the overpass was taking us on top of. Of course, since we were in the middle of a bridge, this was impossible. What we actually had to do was travel to the other side of the overpass, and then navigate back onto east-running lower route. There were no left turns involved. The driver was thoroughly pissed off with the system, ranting almost for the entire rest of the trip at the rest of us about how he was going to file a complaint with the company that supplied him with it, but I just found the whole thing hilarious. In retrospect now, though, I have just considered that the fact that I was laughing about it at the time may have just been making him angrier, which led to the 15 minute or so tirade.

Comment Re:Exactly the same one who is liable.... (Score 1) 179

My point is that pets are property, robots and AI's are property.... their actions are the responsibility of the owners, even if the owner had no actual control over what they did. In the case of robots and AI's that fail to perform as advertised, the owner may in turn have a legitimate claim against the manufacturer (and in some cases, the lawsuit may transfer directly to the manufacturer leaving the owner out of the loop entirely), but if the manufacturer has already disclaimed any such responsibility where they were permitted to do so by law, then the owner is still and should be entirely accountable.

Comment Re:Why I wait before buying.. (Score 1) 112

Nice analogy.... except it doesn't apply here. The amount of time that I go before upgrading my CPU, which in my experience tends to amount to buying virtually an entirely new computer system (CPU, Mobo, memory, and often a video card, and sometimes even a new case and power supply), is about 2 to 3 years. While you might conjecture that I could upgrade slightly less frequently if I were to buy Intel, I doubt somehow doubt I'd be slowing down my upgrading to every 6 to 10 years, which is about how long I'd have to go without upgrading before the cost difference between AMD and Intel would typically pay for itself.

Comment Re:Exactly the same one who is liable.... (Score 2) 179

In the UK, the difference in how they are treated is only in that cats have an implicit "right to roam" unless there are specific extenuating circumstances that will overrule it, while dogs must always be kept confined or on a leash unless there are extenuating circumstances that can overrule that. Cat owners in the UK are still expected to take reasonable steps to prevent their cat causing harm to others or damage to others' property, and they can be held responsible for their pet's actions, even while it was outside of their immediate control and care. So yes, there is a difference in how they are managed: cat owners can generally legally allow their cats to roam anywhere at any time of day or night, and dog owners cannot, but cat owners are not actually any less responsible for their pet's actions than dog owners in the UK. An owner's responsibility with an AI or robot would probably be quite similar to that of a cat.... either way, however, the owner is responsible for the actions of their property.

Slashdot Top Deals

Time to take stock. Go home with some office supplies.