Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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:Denial-of-Service? (Score 1) 102

Few here are probably old enough to actually know how those stickers helped.

Of course the stickers themselves did little. But the requirements to be allowed to glue those stickers to your gear are as described on the sticker. And before the stickers, electric gadgets interfering with each other was a big deal. Even well after WW2 high frequency interference from electric tools was still a big issue. Today, with electric appliances working on FAR lower voltages and using FAR less electricity, along with better parts that create less noise, this problem doesn't really apply anymore, and the FCC sticker is pretty much obsolete, because pretty much any and every power tool will be able to pass.

It wasn't always that way. And people did actually bother to check whether something had that sticker after getting burned (not necessarily only figuratively so) by electronic devices of a lower quality standard that didn't earn that FCC badge.

Comment Re:Denial-of-Service? (Score 1) 102

Understand that this was a very different time than today. When back then someone hacked you, it was for shits 'n giggles. You did it to show off, or you needed a few MB of space online so you created a backdoor to a server where you and a friend could move some data to and from. The damage was negligible. What we did was mostly repurposing resources for our own little benefit.

What you're dealing with today is criminal organizations aiming for money. To draw a parallel, what we did was going out in our little fishing boat and catching a fish because we were hungry. What's going on today is fleets of trawlers stripmining the seas because they want to sell the fish worldwide.

Comment Re:I hope he wins his suit (Score 2) 361

Technically, it is possible to get into med school with only three years of undergrad education, and a fraction of a percent of M.D. degrees are actually awarded to people under those circumstances, but realistically, you won't get into medical school to get an M.D. without first obtaining an undergraduate bachelor's degree. Similarly, you won't get into law school to get a J.D. degree without an undergrad degree.

You could certainly argue that they're equivalent to Master's degrees, but they most certainly are not undergraduate degrees.

Comment Re:Yes but (Score 5, Interesting) 361

Thought experiment. Let's suppose you're a CIVIL engineer -- the type of engineer the regulations are intended to target. You're on vacation in Oregon, and you notice a serious structural fault in a bridge which means that it is in imminent danger of collapse.

Under this interpretation of the term "practice engineering" you wouldn't be able to tell anyone because you're not licensed to practice engineering in Oregon. In fact anyone who found an obvious fault -- say, a crack in the bridge -- would be forbidden to warn people not to use it until it had been looked at.

Which is ridiculous. Having and expressing an opinion, even a professionally informed opinion, isn't "practicing engineering". Practicing engineering means getting paid -- possibly in some form other than money. At the very least it means performing the kind of services for which engineers are normally paid.

A law which prevented people from expressing opinions wouldn't pass constitutional muster unless it was "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling public interest" -- that's the phrase the constitutional lawyers use when talking about laws regulating constitutionally protected activities. In this case the public interest is safety, which would be served by a law which prevented unqualified people from falsely convincing people that a structure was safe. But there is no compelling interest in preventing an engineer from warning the public about something he thinks is dangerous or even improper.

So if the law means what they claim it to mean, it's very likely unconstitutional.

Comment Re:Beta testing self-driving vehicles... (Score 1) 48

Well, eventually they will figure it out how to make self driving cars safer than more than 99% of human drivers. When that happens, I'm not sure, but it will happen. Now, if you introduce them too early, a very risky and unsafe version of self driving cars that is maybe safer than 20% of the human driver population, but less safe than 80%, then anybody of those 80% using a self driving car would mean a safety risk.

Except that's not really how it happens, you don't need to be a race car driver to be a good street driver. A good street driver is merely consistent, appropriate speed, paying attention, obeying the traffic rules. It's not a skill level, it's a fail rate. You do things right for a year or five years or twenty years and then for some reason you fuck up. As in failed to yield, ran a red light, didn't see the pedestrian, fell asleep at the wheel, didn't check their blind spot, lost control of the car fail. I can guarantee you that all the SDC test vehicles are better than 100% of humans at not rear-ending anyone.

If it's not coming officially it's coming unofficially with all sorts of assistants where technically you drive yourself. And people will ignore it, but we'll dismiss them as Darwin awards.

Comment Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score 1) 244

Show me where I did this?

Continue to run around as though the sky is falling. you're going to be a nuisance one way or another anyways.

At that point, I hadn't written anything other than your "evidence" is actually consistent with mainstream views on climate change. Rather than own up to the fact that the anecdote wasn't useful or explaining why you thought it didn't fit into the theory, you immediately resorted insults and ad hominem dismissal.

Sure didn't stop you from escalating.

Escalation? What escalation? All I see is you boorishly complaining about irrelevancies, then whining about how nobody wants to listen to your "wisdom".

We all have the right to say what we want without fear of physical violence.

It'd be nice if people who believe that also thought they had a duty to use that right responsibly. All too often I see verbal bullies hiding behind "free speech" as shield from the predictable consequences of the offensive things they say.

This fits the tried and true profiles of mental disorder, but I could be wrong.

From your track record, you probably are. In fact, I'd say in this case you've layered incorrect opinions so deep, you probably need professional help to come back to terms with reality.

You can attempt to attack my character all you want, call me names etc, it won't change the truth of my observations.

If you can't understand the difference between behaviour and character, how can we do anything but doubt the truth of your (biased) observations?

Comment Re:Fluid type manipulation with unions (Score 1) 405

Granted, you're not making it worse in any way by representing it with a union.

More to the point, you can't make it better by avoiding using a union. Because it's optimum as is.

The right tool for the right job.

pretty much the essence of obscure legacy cruft.

The job is the job. I have no problem using the right tool for the job.

Comment Re:structs and fundamental OO (Score 1) 405

You are just reinventing machine language where data, instructions, and address pointers can be mixed willy-nilly.

Because machine language varies hugely, and c varies little or none, when working on one platform and then another, c is a convenient low-level way to get as many advantages of working close to the metal (obvious ones are speed and executable size) as possible.

Higher-level languages merely try to introduce discipline and consistency to such practices.

Yes, they do. And in the process, they often cause the resulting product to suffer in speed and/or execution size (and the source code in clarity.) When "mere" means "the product is less good", I translate it as "not mere."

There are reasons to go one way or another. It's not as simple as "HLL's are always better." Sometimes even machine language is the best place to go, embedded controllers with limited storage and small tasks that must be accomplished efficiently, for instance.

Comment Impartial journalism? (Score 1) 164

impartial journalism is entirely possible.

It's certainly possible, but if you can actually show me an instance of it, I'd be quite surprised. I don't recall seeing such a thing. Ever.

There's selection bias, where the story that is told is not the only story, and/or leaves out pertinent details that variously pollute the information transfer to the information consumer. This occurs at the publisher, editorial, reporter and information source levels.

There are errors in collecting information, which can be characterized as "impartial but wrong" which entirely undermines the value of "impartial."

There's the social underpinning, such as the assumptions by the platform from publisher down to reporter buy into memes like the drug war, human trafficking, mommyism, military adventurism, etc. as right and proper undertakings and tell stories in the context of the presumptive matrix that results from those memes.

There's ad-pumping, where the advertising pays more money in when more eyes are attracted, which creates a loop based on popularity rather than accuracy.

There's comment "moderation", where "I disagree / am offended / am trolling" can strongly affect visibility of information -- depending on the site, that can come from privileged (and usually wholly unqualified) individuals, as here on slashdot, or from the crowd, as on reddit.

It all adds up to an extremely formidable gauntlet that information has to run in order to get from wherever it arises over to the consideration of the consumer.

And, not that it's part of the problem of actually achieving impartial journalism, but were you to completely get past every aspect of that somehow, then you still have to find an impartial audience or all that work is for nothing.

IOW, if you manage to present the facts, all the facts, nothing but the facts, and your audience cries "fake news" or drags prejudice, superstition, confirmation bias, or anything from a very long list of similar cognitive failure modes into it, well, there you go. You might as well have written an SF novel.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best. -- Oscar Wilde

Working...