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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:What part of this is hard to understand? (Score 1) 181

I agree that there should be Quality of Service scenarios, but the services like VoIP should be sold separately with their own bandwidth in addition to "general" bandwidth.

Or perhaps more simply, you should be able to pay extra for a separate high QoS connection which would be useful for VoIP or real-time stuff, but *you* decide what the bandwidth is used for, not ISP routers. If you want to use your high QoS pipe for bit torrent, that's your business.

So yeah, if you want to use VoIP over a general Internet pipe, then there shouldn't be traffic shaping on the ISP end for that and the QoS is your problem, not theirs.

Comment Re:Movie theaters (Score 1) 342

That depends how much of viewer share is still in theaters. If it is still high, then theaters could very easily hand the studio that tries that a very serious beating due to refusing to show their films at all. And then it comes down to who is stronger and even then, fear and uncertainty may postpone that date until long after the balance had already shifted.

One day, a studio will do what you propose, everyone will hold their breath and the studio will win and theaters will sink as suddenly as if a sink hole opened up under them. But like a sink hole in real life, the ground underneath will have been eaten away by slow erosion for years. So, I'm guessing that that the studios will be afraid right up to the date that some maverick studio head tries something, and he will either be squashed like a bug (postponing the change for another decade), or immediately change everything overnight.

Comment Re:Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair (Score 1) 566

She is not Donald Trump. Which is honestly a top 3 reason she'll get elected. I do agree that it is not the #1 reason, which is that there are demographics that wouldn't even vote for Abraham Lincoln if he came back and ran as a Republican in 2016.

Republicans had the best opponent in years to go up against, and they picked the only candidate who she could beat without even really trying.

I'm not a huge Pence fan, but holy shit, they'd have a better chance if they flipped the ticket around. Then Donald would be kind of like a Republican Joe Biden and no one would care.

Comment Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? (Score 1) 1042

The universe is very much philosophical. Unless you're suggesting we're not part of it.

Transient or not. Small blue speck of dust or not. We're here and we're part of the Universe. Philosophy is as much part of that as the Theories of Relativity or Evolution are, the only uncertainty is in what measure.

And you haven't explained "why", you have merely explained "how". Your real answer to "why" is,

"I have no idea, and I don't care."

Which means you probably sleep pretty well. Lucky you.

Comment Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? (Score 1) 1042

The use of the term "simulation" to describe this is meaningless. You might as well be talking about God and the afterlife as posthumans (or more accurately "pre-humans") running a simulation. The situation only differs in terms of who specifically is running it and what impact they have had on the "simulation".

If we're running in a simulation, then our only means of knowing it would be via revelation. Either direct revelation, or by being programmed to accept the concept. A simulation is supposed to mimic reality, so why would we be surprised if we find some features of our simulations in reality?

I'm not saying that we are or are not living in what is, in effect, a simulation. I just find the idea meaningless unless there is some sort of revelation. And I find someone assigning a percentage chance to the idea beyond absurd. This is word play, not scientific theory. Even the scientific aspects of this are filled with "ifs" that don't have to even be close to what they envision.

There is nothing that requires the ability to build a human brain in transistors or qubits or whatever. And even if there is, for those of you offended by the concept of a unique structure, the hardware required for simulation does not have to be as efficient as the organic brain is, either in size, amount of resources, or power consumption. And if we simply manufactured an organic brain, then we'd have to have similar means of powering and training it, which effectively generates humans identical to ourselves in most meaningful respects. And that might well be cloning, but I wouldn't call it a simulation.

Comment Re:Many believe that we live in a computer simulat (Score 1) 1042

The problem is that ultimately, Mexicans make cheaper textiles because they accept a lower standard of living. The only way to combat that directly is artificially making foreign products more expensive. Which is to say, trade protectionism.

Yes, there are definitely improvements to be made in the tax code and in the red tape, but the bottom line is that it's going to be cheaper to make these items elsewhere. The only thing keeping that industry here was that they did not have skilled workers and the investment to do so. The high price of US labor over the past decades has ensured that industry was able to deal with that overhead cost and still make a profit. You'll have to do something punitive to keep US companies from using overseas labor, and I foresee that blowing up in our face.

The US, for better or worse, is permanently out of the textile business and many other businesses which used to support a great deal of workers, or at least until something fundamental changes. We're better off trying to compete in new areas where the money hasn't already been spent to transfer operations overseas.

Comment Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula (Score 1) 1042

Bernie has been an outsider the entire time. It didn't require anything untoward for a slate of superdelegates to be generated to favor Hillary because Sanders was absent for those decisions. Hillary might have been the only one playing the game, but Sanders should have known the score going in. And I think he did, he never expected to even deal with that, he was probably as surprised as everyone else was that he had gotten that much support where superdelegates were even a factor.

Comment Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula (Score 1) 1042

Clinton basically checks the checkboxes for what you'd want a President to have done. But yes, she wasn't good at those jobs.

I'm not sure if I would prefer a bad plumber to someone who has never done any plumbing to work on my pipes. It may be academic, depending if the damage goes over a certain threshold.

Although, at this point, I think people are simply going to vote for which of the two of them is less likely to start a nuclear war, which unfortunately is probably Hillary. God have mercy on us all.

At one point I thought that, even though I disagree with the Libertarian Party on a lot of specifics, they'd be a safe protest vote, but after Johnson can't even figure out what Aleppo is on live TV, I don't think I could vote for him with a straight face. Foreign affairs is far too important for him to not have that shit on the tip of his tongue with a ready answer. He doesn't get a pass on that. It was a mistake, but a mistake he would not have made if he'd been thinking about it seriously.

Comment Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula (Score 1) 1042

Yes. In effect, Bernie actually needed the superdelegates more than Hillary did to win. Of course, he wasn't going to get them, even though he tried to make a case for it, because they tend to vote for whoever has the majority of the popular vote, and that was Hillary.

One can argue whether the election was skewed against him, but if so, it was more due to DNC scheming than superdelegates, which were never actually a factor, except, I guess, psychologically for some people.

Comment Re: Insightful (Score 2) 182

True. It's amazing what you can put together after even an explosion. One charred and warped, but mostly intact panel with a hole consistent with a .50 cal anti-materiel round would be pretty conclusive.

Of course, if you know how rockets are generally constructed, you might be able to put a round somewhere that isn't as easy to conclusively prove was from a rifle.

Still, given all the things you have to do just right to enable space flight with rockets, I'm still going to regard this as pretty unlikely. The fact is that somebody inside that conglomerate would have to have hired a professional and had a pretty detailed program to make something like this happen. You're not just going to put a sniper on the roof and tell him to take potshots at it. That sniper will need to have been given a briefing with specific places he needs to hit with one shot to havethat effect. And he'll probably need to practice it. All of that takes time, money, and most importantly, other people committed to a secret that they all know would be very, very illegal. Such people exist, certainly, but are those people going to be involved in something as petty as this? No idea.

Comment Re:Not necessarily (Score 1) 184

I agree that some pretty routine protection can give you a considerable amount of value.

But it wouldn't stop a concerted attack on you. You'd have been vulnerable to something like Heartbleed for two years, even if you patched every hour of every day of that two years. There have been other examples of obscure vulnerabilities that have been very serious and still missed for all of that. There are definitely things out there that no one knows about, or no one has gotten around to fixing yet. All it takes is for someone to want to devote enough attention to you in order to exploit them.

That's why if you work for a small company, you might do very well with routine patching, but that will not be at all be sufficient for a big bank.

Comment Re:Two words: "Ford Pinto" (Score 1) 184

Well, it is important to point out that no one really thinks their life is less important than tasty food. The real factors are:

There is always a reasonable probability that it won't be what kills you. That bacon triple cheeseburger may eventually kill you, but your smoking habit will probably do that first. You're going to die of something, you're betting you don't live long enough so that all of your bad decisions play out.

Second, people just have really bad perception of relative risk. That's why some people are more afraid of terrorists than they are of driving to work, even though driving to work is probably at least two orders of magnitude more likely to get you killed on any given day than all types of terrorist (Muslim, Christian, Marxist, eco-nuts) put together.

Slashdot Top Deals

As of next Tuesday, C will be flushed in favor of COBOL. Please update your programs.