Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:Call it what you want... (Score 1) 67

I view streaming content on a variety of devices off of a perfectly acceptable cable internet connection and I still see the compression, but the worst of it is seen on the "main" family TV. Netflix offers the best experience (followed by Amazon Video, followed by the truly horrific Google Play), but it's still there.

I fully admit that I am not a hardcore video guy and not obsessed with tweaking a bunch of TV settings so there is indeed room to make adjustments. That said, I'm very happy with up-scaled DVDs of the same movies on the same TV. Adjusting contrast/brightness would only force the shadows even deeper for disk-based video and that's not an acceptable trade-off.

I should clarify my previous statement above. When I wrote "Visible gradients ruin every single scene always" I didn't meant to imply I'm seeing gradients all the time. I'm only seeing them in scenes containing large percentages of darkness/black.

Comment Re:No sovereign immunity (Score 2) 534

Dude! Stop with all the acronyms please! (I'm European)

Wow. I had no idea that Europeans couldn't Google acronyms. Did Google firewall your nation or something?

I tried:

Better, possession of un-taxed National Fostering Association items.

Especially if anything is select fire and made after '86 since the only non-mil and non-low earth orbit that can possess such are Friend for Life holders with the Society of Toxicologists to deal in National Flute Association stuff....

Comment Re:By this logic... (Score 1) 235

Nope - you didn't mention time horizon in your article. Top tip - describing finite things as infinite is bad style.

What seem to have wanted to say is

1) that the number of bugs in a non-trivial piece of software is sufficiently large that they will probably not all be found before the software is obsolete. Which is dull but probably mostly true (given the wriggle room in "non-trivial" and "probably")

2) that offering a bug bounty because of this large latent pool of bugs is pointless.

This second one is just not valid because

1) bug bounties encourage reporting of bugs
2) not all bugs are equal - there are different costs for finding them in a particular product and a bug bounty will encourage people to find and report the easier ones.
3) There are finitely many black-hats. As the easy-to-find bugs in the pool are exhausted then the cost per bug to the black-hat increases in this product.

At this point the black hat has a choice - pursue finding harder bugs in product A (which has a bounty) or go for the easy to find bugs in product B (which doesn't). Blackhats are running a business - they will go for the return on investment in product B.

This neglects the very large positive advantages of reporting which others have covered earlier (discovery of systematic issues, healthy ecosystem of investigators, disincentive to black-hats).

At this point your "bug bounties are useless" falls apart because it neglects the fact that black-hats are running a business - spending $10million to find a bug in Apache will not happen because the blackhats cannot get a return on their investment. They will spend $10k looking for exploits in Flash, or PDF, or other low hanging fruit.

Comment Re:No Commentary = FAIL (Score 1) 82

Some commentators are OK, some are dire for the sports. The nadir, the very worst, is Mark Lawrenson (football, or soccer for the former colonists) - just unspeakably bad and has never said anything of note or interest during any football game (he does more than the Olympics, so his uselessness is of vast scope).

The one I really don't get is the commentary opening and closing ceremonies. Why on earth do they think the artistic part of the ceremony needs commentary at all? Some idiot warbling "Here's Kenneth Branaugh giving Caliban's speech from the tempest" over Caliban's speech from The Tempest. Why? Do they feel the need to interject things like "Oh course, Jason Bourne is played by Matt Damon, whose first film role was in Mystic Pizza" during a tense chase sequence in the film?

I can just about (if I were being charitable) see the point of a bit of background for the more ceremonial parts of the event - flag carriers and that sort of thing. But even there - the crowd in the stadium get by perfectly well on the stadium announcers, so just be quiet.

And breathe

Comment Re:The license fee thing... (Score 1) 82

In the UK there are a few ways of getting the broadcasts: OTA (aka Freeview), Sky (commercial Sat), FreeSat, Cable, and internet streaming. We've got Freesat, and there were 25 additional HD channels (taking the number of Olympic HD channels up to about 27). All free. It was an embarrassment of riches. Bit of a gap in the fencing - lets to to live weightlifting, via the beach volleyball.

For example the opening ceremony you could have
1) Normal with commentary
2) Without commentary
3) Captioned commentary for the deaf

You simply could not pay for this anywhere else in the world.

Comment Re:Violation of Equivalence Principle (Score 1) 379

"Mr Einstein's assertion that the photoelectric effect is due to "quanta" of light strains belief. Maxwell's theory already describes light."

-- Someone on Slashdot in 1905

The equivalence principle - the equality of inertial and gravitational masses - is one of the mysteries of physics: no really compelling explanation with why it is the case is generally agreed, just that it is true to a very impressive number of decimal places.

But look through the list of tests and spot the one thing they have in common: they all test matter.

So Hajdukovic's assertion here is, I think, really elegant: take something that everyone supposes is true in areas it hasn't been tested, and assume it is false in those areas. In this case antimatter has the same inertial mass but different gravitational mass from matter. How would the universe be different if this was the case? And, so far as had been modelled, it is almost identical, except that (using a simple model) this allows you to derive the Tully-Fisher relation for the rotation of galaxies.

This is good science - clever thinking, clear assumption, simple test (well, conceptually simple), and a useful light played upon some of the roots of physics. In this case we've extended the equivalence principle way beyond the areas where there is experimental support for it.

Comment Re:Let's Put This In Perspective (Score 5, Informative) 251

One reporter and the private investigator have already gone to prison for this: I think wrong-doing has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt by convictions in a criminal court.

In addition News International have setup up a ~£20million fund to pay compensation to those who they have admitted they hacked. I think wrong-doing have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt by a confession and an apology.

What is up for debate here is exactly how evil and corrupt they are - it has been proved that they are evil and corrupt already.

Slashdot Top Deals

All the simple programs have been written.