Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Judges and logic, always a riot (Score 1) 176

I'll admit, that was my first thought. But I thought about it a bit more.

The issue is that recorded speech is protected as well. If I make a video saying that a certain politician is a vile person for whatever reasons--assuming that I'm not committing slander--just because I'm doing it "live" doesn't mean it's not protected speech. The government can't ban me from distributing that video just because of it's contents.

Like others said, the judge is right. Unfortunately.

To use a right-wing slogan, "freedom isn't free." Sometimes we have to put up with annoyances.

Comment Re:Readability wins every time (Score 2) 239

Speaking of readability, here's an entertaining one I've been seeing more of in C:

if (result == SUCCESS)
if (SUCCESS == result)

The rationale behind the second is that you don't end up accidentally assigning SUCCESS to result (eg, if (result = SUCCESS)). But I know that I find it weird to look at it the other way around. I want to know if the result was successful, not if successful was the result. Maybe it's an english thing.

I know that Xcode has been putting up warnings/errors for code that does assignments in if-statements and saying that if you really want to do that, wrap it in an extra layer of parentheses (eg, if ((booleanResult = Do_Something()))). I'm not sure this is somehow more clear that you're doing the assignment...

Comment Re:Simon Pegg is being a bitch (Score 1) 354

Yeah, I gotta admit, that struck me as odd.

What made me chuckle is that, from the first film, what created this alternate timeline was the Romulan ship that came back in time. So how does that make Sulu gay versus straight in the original timeline. Or did we start in an alternate alternate timeline?

And of course, what'll happen to Demora Sulu?

Comment Re:Did you see Star Trek: The Motion Picture? (Score 1) 354

Actually, supposedly it sort of was an episode.

One interesting thing about TV in 1960s was the importance of "total viewers." They didn't break things down into demographics. When Star Trek went into syndication and they started to see that the show was popular with worthwhile (to advertiser) demographics, there was talk of bringing the show back. This is referred to as Star Trek: Phase II. It was going to head a "Paramount Network" which never came to fruition. However, the pilot episode became the basis for Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Comment Re:loyalty is a two-way street (Score 1) 765

when companies only offer you 'contract work' when you are over 50 (since its easier to fire you, being a protected age class if you are NOT fulltime) - and they walk your ass out right after the project is over, the days of company loyalty are ALSO LONG GONE.

In general, if I'm contract, then I'm here as a hired-gun and that's all I am. I'm not part of "team" and I don't necessarily believe in the "vision." You get work, I get money, and that's the only relationship. If you need something done in a month and I'm going to need to put in 12 hour days to do it, you're going to pay me for each and every hour or I'll walk. And, yes, I make sure that I communicate how much work I believe it's going to be before a contract is signed.

If I'm there as a contract, my only loyalty is to money--No freebies.

Comment A New Hope? (Score 1) 65

[...] a new type of cryptography called the New Hope algorithm [...]

Maybe it's just me, but I have some reservations using an encryption technology with the word "Hope" in the name--as in, "We really hope this works." It's kind of like PGP, "Pretty Good Privacy." It's not great, but it's pretty good.

Granted, what's in a name? Take the same encryption and call it "Anti-Quantum Encryption" and I'd probably be on board.

Comment Re:Easily destroyed or disabled (Score 3, Interesting) 263

That's the part that has me confused.

Okay, so this is basically a mobile camera with enough intelligence to note when something is happening that is out of the ordinary. Not a bad thing.

But then this comes:

If someone suspicious comes into the lot, or starts messing with a car [...] the robot can set off an alarm, send a signal to human security personnel [...]

So, I still need to pay for a human being to sit around and wait for the robot to signal that something bad is happening.

I suppose I can hire one security guard to "monitor" two or three areas (i.e., wait around for the robot to signal that something suspicious may be happening) and then go check it out, rather than hiring 2 or 3 security guards.

So this seems like it makes more sense for larger areas where one security guard wouldn't be enough to patrol.

Slashdot Top Deals

Waste not, get your budget cut next year.