Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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: Bullshit. (Score 2) 91

"Using a chat program to hide " doesn't even make logical sense.

It does if the chat program using public key encryption between the users. In that case even the mediating servers don't have access to message contents.

The scheme is flawless -- but then it almost always is unless it's devised by a total ignoramus. What they get you on is implementation.

Comment Re: Yeah, sounds nuts alright. (Score 1) 106

Plus, a transplanted *head* might end up paralyzed from the neck down in its donor body, but at least the patient might have working eyesight & facial muscles. Transplant a brain alone, and the patient doesn't even get to have *that* as a 'Plan B' consolation.

Another possibility is that at best, you'd be resurrecting a zombie whose brain effectively had its programming erased when it died (or, perhaps, would be like a Sandforce SSD that loses power during a write operation & leaves the storage in a state that it can't make sense of later).

As difficult as it might be to transplant a donor cadaver's body onto another patient's head, at least there *is* a chance that it might work well enough to keep the recipient alive with some quality of life. IMHO, a brain-only transplant at this time is several steps *beyond* the realm of anything that even *pretends* to resemble sanity.

Comment Tomography (Score 1) 38

They basically took a CT scan (computed tomography) using radio waves instead of x-rays.

Tomography has been around for over 80 years. It's why there's no lens when you have a traditional x-ray taken. You just fire the RF rays in a uniform direction (in this case the single WiFi course acts as a point source with all rays radiating radially), and capture them using a flat photographic plate (or in this case, by moving the WiFi receiver around on a plane). What they're doing isn't even as sophisticated as a CT scan because without moving the RF source as well, they can't capture 3D information.

Comment Re:Well that didn't take long (Score 1) 207

Didn't take long for the "internet racist" to show their ugly faces. I almost feel sorry for them.

You mean racists like folks who advocate putting quotas on how many Asians are accepted to universities and high-paying jobs because they tend to do better than whites? Affirmative action against whites I can kinda understand. The operating premise being that in the past whites obtained their power, influence, and money partially by repressing minorities. And that the aftereffects of those past transgressions still slightly influence people's positions in society, so a counter-influence is needed to level the playing field. But Asians historically were one of those repressed minorities. Applying affirmative action against them just exposes you as a racist - someone who wants other people's position in society to be determined not solely by their ability, but partially by their race according to your unsubstantiated prejudices (in this case, that all races should be equal in everything, even if they're really not).

Despite what I just wrote, I actually agree with what California is doing with Airbnb. If you browse through their listings, the vast majority of properties are listed by landlords doing short-term rentals as a business. Not homeowners renting out their home while they're on vacation. If it's the home you live in with your personal items holding great sentimental value, you can rent it out to whomever you want. If you're only comfortable with people of the same race as you being in your home, then so be it. But if it's a second (or third, or tenth) house you rent out as a business, and your only attachment to the furnishings is their cash replacement value, then anti-discrimination statues should apply.

Comment Re:Literally in the Summary (Score 5, Informative) 279

"The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment."

Motherhood is one factor, but I hesitate to go there first because there is still such a problem with harassment in tech.

Congratulations. You've just demonstrated the anti-male bias OP was implying exists in these types of reports. That statement from TFA applies to both female and male employees who left their job.

If you dig up the actual report, you'll find that men left due to unfairness/mistreatment more than women - 40% vs 31%. You read the general stat and assumed it indicated a problem with how women are treated, when in fact it's men who more often feel they're mistreated.

The actual report makes pretty interesting reading. The stats are all over the place. Women report experiencing or seeing more mistreatment, but reported experiencing stereotyping at roughly the same rate as men (23% vs 24% for minority men vs women, 14% vs 12 % for white/asian men vs women). The rate of unwanted sexual attention is drastically higher in the tech industry than other industries (10% vs 6%), but the rate of unwanted sexual attention reported by women is only slightly higher than by men (10% vs 8%). For bullying and harassment, white/asian women reported a lower incident rate than white/asian men (15% vs 16%). But minority women reported a substantially higher rate than minority men (13% vs 9%). You'll also notice minorities reported a lower harassment rate than whites/asians.

I highly recommend reading the actual report if you're curious about this stuff. It doesn't really fit into any of the stereotypes (hah) about male/female or white/asian vs minorities.

Comment Re:You can't generalize. (Score 1) 379

It does *sound* a bit sociopathic, doesn't it? But sociopathy is a pathological disregard for the rights of others. While deception is often used to violate someone's rights, but it can *also* be used to protect someone's rights.

For example if I knew an employee was embezzling money, I don't have to tell him I know. I can deceive him into thinking I'm not on to him until I gather enough proof or discover who his accomplices are. This is deceptive, but not a violation of his rights.

Comment You can't generalize. (Score 2) 379

Anyone who works on unauthorized personal projects should certainly expect to be subject to firing. But as a supervisor I would make the decision to fire based on what is best for my employer. That depends on a lot of things.

I don't believe in automatic zero tolerance responses. The question for me is whether the company better off booting this guy or disciplining him. Note this intrinsically unfair. Alice is a whiz who gets all of her work done on time and to top quality standards. Bob is a mediocre performer who is easily replaced. So Alice gets a strong talking to and Bob gets the heave-ho, which is unfair to Bob because Alice did exactly the same thing.

But there's a kind of meta-fairness to it. Stray off the straight and narrow and you subject yourself to arbitrary, self-interested reactions.

Now as to Alice, I would (a) remind her that anything she creates on company time belongs to the company (even if we're doing open source -- we get to choose whether the thing is distributed) and (b) that any revenue she derives from it rightly belongs to the company. But again there's no general rule other than maximize the interests of the company. I'll probably insist she shut down the project immediately and turn everything over to the company, but not necessarily. I might choose to turn a blind eye. Or maybe even turn a blind eye until Alice delivers on her big project, then fire her and sue her for the side project revenues if I thought we didn't need her any longer. If loyalty is a two-way street, so is betrayal.

Sure, you may rationalize working on a side project as somehow justified by the fact your employer doesn't pay you what you're really worth, but the grown-up response to that is to find a better job; if you can't, by definition in a market economy you are getting paid at least what you're worth. If you decide to proceed by duplicity, you can't expect kindness or understanding unless you can compel it.

Comment Re:60Ghz (Score 1) 136

I agree it sounds impractical. So I looked at the patent -- which not being a radio engineer it's perfectly safe for me to do (n.b. -- it's always dangerous to look at what might be bullshit patents in your field because you open yourself up to increased damages for using common sense). But I was a ham radio operator when I was a kid so I do know the lingo.

There are a number of problems with broadcasting power, starting with the fact that it's inefficient to saturate ambient space with enough radiation to be usefully harvested. But that's not what they're proposing. 802.11 ad operates in the extreme microwave range -- about 5cm wavelength aka the "V" band. This band is also unregulated so you can try weird things in it. What they propose is to use an array of antennas to create a steerable beam -- like a phased array radar. This would confine the power to a specific plane so that you wouldn't have to saturate all of ambient space with power. The beam steering would be done "dynamically", which I take to mean it would figure out how to maximize signal strength with some kind of stochastic algorithm. So it might not work if you are unicycling around the room.

And because the wavelength is so short an antenna array would be relatively compact.

Even so, it doesn't sound that practical. It's bound to be limited to line of sight, for example: the V band does not penetrate walls or the human body at all, in contrast with the S band that conventional wifi operates on. I can certainly imagine applications for it, but making it practical for charging your phone is apt to be very expensive. You'd have surround yourself with V band antenna arrays.

By the way, reading this patent reminds me of why I hate reading patents. They're infuriatingly vague in order to make the claims as broad as possible, and yet are cluttered with inanely obvious details ("the radio receiver can include active and passive components") and irrelevancies (the device may include a touch screen). I think the purpose may be that someone trying to figure out whether the vague language applies to a cell phone will think, "I don't know WTF this is claiming, but look this phone *does* have a touch screen." It just shows how broken our patent system is.

Comment Re:60Ghz (Score 1) 136

It's not practical. Why Apple is filing a patent on this, I don't know.

So people will talk about it (like we are here) and associate Apple's name with cool new futuristic stuff, even if that stuff is physically impossible to produce. A few thousand dollars for a patent application is a paltry sum for the amount of free advertising they've gotten out of this.

Slashdot Top Deals

"'Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true." -- Poloniouius, in Willie the Shake's _Hamlet, Prince of Darkness_