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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Use A Big Pipe (Score 1) 105

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) 223

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) 372

.... 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) 154

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) 176

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) 106

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) 176

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.

Comment Re:Why I wait before buying.. (Score 2) 106

That's only trouble-free for people for whom the price of Intel compared to AMD is already not a concern.

So in other words, what you really mean is that what works best for a trouble-free life is to just be rich enough that you can buy your way past any problems.

And who can argue with that?

Comment Re:This is bullcrap (Score 1) 509

Is it still contempt of court it *not* declining is beyond your ability? If you *do* forget your password and are asked to produce it by a judge, then the court cannot fairly still hold you in contempt unless they also believe (probably without having any actual evidence to substantiate it) that you are lying to them about having forgotten.

Comment And this is going to be just awesome when..... (Score 1) 509

.... wetware becomes a thing, and people start tying their passwords to their mental and emotional states, making it utterly impossible for someone to use that password to unlock a system unless they genuinely wanted to and not under any kind of duress to do so, whether by external coercion or drugs.

And when failing to surrender such passwords to the court when requested is contempt of court, you can then be held in contempt of court only for what you are thinking.

Yup, the 21st century's gonna be just great. Somebody call over the guy selling popcorn.

Comment Re:Once again - double standard. (Score 1) 231

Actually, the only thing the employer *has* to do is offer enough money that he can find people who will do whatever job it is that he wants done. This does not have to be anything resembling what he thinks or even knows that the job may actually be worth. The only thing the employee *has* to do is fulfill the expectations of work completed that the employer has on him. That's it.

I am suggesting, however, that these are merely the minimums that one can offer at a potentially sustainable level... it's a pitifully low bar, and if it as high as anyone ever reaches, then I can only suggest that they are probably never going to be happy with themselves or their choices, or probably almost anything in their life, which is truly unfortunate. Ideally, an employer pays what an employee is *actually* worth, and not just whatever minimum amount they might be able to get one for, and the employee actually cares enough about the quality of their work that any extra time that they might spend on it without any addition remuneration is going to be inconsequential to them (because the employer is already paying them fairly anyways). This ideal is the standard that I hold to, and I do, quite frankly, think that people who settle for less either have too poor a self-esteem to believe they are actually worth more, or else who simply do not have the integrity to maintain a positive work ethic that is transferable to *ANY* job, regardless of how much money it may make a person. It is, I am sorry to say, an ideal that is not always achievable, but if I do not reach beyond whatever standard I know I might achieve, I know I can never discover my fullest potential..

Slashdot Top Deals

A bug in the code is worth two in the documentation.

Working...