Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!



Is Being In the Same BitTorrent "Swarm" Equal To "Interacting"?

Looce On interaction in communication media (166 comments)

Your example assumes you called a certain known endpoint (a person, or an automated telephone answering system) and interacted directly with it.

BitTorrent downloads from, and uploads to, unknown endpoints that happen to have or want the file, respectively.

On the one hand, you authorise your BitTorrent client to communicate with these hosts on your behalf, and your goal is the same (to get and give the file); this may constitute a form of interaction.

On the other hand, you have no control over which hosts your BitTorrent client contacts. These people may be people you know or strangers; people in the same or another jurisdiction. The link may be difficult to establish.

more than 2 years ago

New JBOSS Worm Infecting Unpatched Servers

Looce 15 minutes (47 comments)

Clearly all the Slashdot commenters are busy patching their bosses' JBoss servers against this vulnerability.

more than 3 years ago

Red Hat Uncloaks 'Java Killer': the Ceylon Project

Looce >> According to the slides, ... (623 comments)

From TFA:

>> According to the slides, the Ceylon Project aims to create a programming language and SDK for business computing, designed with an eye to the successes and failures of the Java. It is built to run on the JVM

>>> the Ceylon Project is built to run on the JVM


more than 3 years ago

Angry Birds Exec Says Console Games Are Dying

Looce Nintendo Exec Says Phone Games Are Dying (350 comments)

"Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata went on the offensive today against his smartphone counterparts, arguing that the model pursued by individuals like Peter Vesterbacka is 'dying.' In a panel discussion at the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, Iwata said that innovation wasn't coming from independent game coders, but from large and established companies like his own. Iwata also pointed to the major concern over the price model for smartphone games. Compared to games on established consoles, which hover around fifty dollars, mobile titles like Angry Birds run for 99 cents and make their developers little money due to the policies of online app stores. At these price points, "there's no motivation [for] high-value video games," Iwata said. Still, the executive did admit that the business model for console games had yet to be completely figured out."

Okay, not exactly, but Iwata-san did say something against smartphones at the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, a mere 13 days ago.

more than 3 years ago

Canada Courts Quash Gov't Decision On Globalive

Looce Re:confusing multiple negatives (104 comments)

Mandate from CRTC disallows operation.
Decision from cabinet to overturn the mandate allows operation.
Ruling from court to reject the decision disallows operation.

Unscrambled as requested.

more than 3 years ago

Ars Thinks Google Takes a Step Backwards For Openness

Looce Re:Miking up 'open' and 'standard' (663 comments)

There's a mistaken assumption here: Google doesn't save $6.5 million as long as Youtube is still encoding H.264 video. This is a purely political move on Google's part.

That is right, but if Google and Mozilla get their way, Google will have saved themselves $6.5 million a year by not needing to encode H.264 anymore for YouTube, and everyone else for not needing to put in support anymore. I seem to have tripped up in my explanations again.

more than 3 years ago

Ars Thinks Google Takes a Step Backwards For Openness

Looce Re:Miking up 'open' and 'standard' (663 comments)

The other side of that coin is that, if Google decided to include H.264 support in Chrome, other browser makers, without or with little money, could have been unable to pay the royalties needed to be paid to patent owners to support it in their browsers. Does Google saving itself $6.5 million annually pale in comparison to Google saving itself and everyone else up to $6.5 million annually?

The Web does not need H.264 to function, so if everyone drops support for it preemptively, then even the small browser makers (I'm thinking of Flock here, which is based on Chromium but has a user base of its own) won't need to pay royalties to anyone.

This is like the GIF patents by Unisys* driving adoption of the PNG format, except that the patents are being assessed now because we know of a few formats that are** suitable for the job but unencumbered already. For instance, WebM can, like H.264, be implemented by anyone, but in addition to that, WebM intentionally doesn't require that royalties be paid. It can become a standard, like PNG originally wasn't a standard but then became an ISO/IEC standard 8 years later.

* = As well as other factors such as the lack of true-color support, alpha and ICC in a lossless format, but that's off-topic.
** = May not be for now, due to lack of hardware acceleration, but could become in the future. Some people don't really care about power usage or CPU usage, so it's already suitable for them.

more than 3 years ago

A New Idea, For People Who Want To See More Banner Ads

Looce A New Idea... (167 comments)

Disable your ad blocker. Ding, instant shitload of ads.

more than 3 years ago

W3C Says IE9 Is Currently the Most HTML5 Compatible Browser

Looce Re:And in other news... (382 comments)

That's because you can't really use HTML 5 to make an ad that is going to be served to users of IE below version 9, in all of which support for HTML 5 does not exist.

So what do you use to advertise IE 9? Either Flash, or Java, or HTML 4 + JavaScript, or some other solution.

Java is bulky. HTML 4 + JavaScript is not that fast in IE 8 and earlier, so it's liable to freeze IE up and disrupt page navigation. Other solutions may mess up even further. You're left with Flash.

about 4 years ago

ICANN Approves .IRAN (in Non-Latin)

Looce The ccTLDs in question (148 comments)

Iran, Islamic Republic of. ccTLDs: xn--mgba3a4f16a, xn--mgba3a4fra.

The Unicode whitelist on Slashdot is preventing us from having the Farsi reading, so see here.

more than 4 years ago

Twitter To Start Selling Followers

Looce Re:Sorry, Slashdot doesn't understand APIs. (95 comments)

Slight inaccuracy, you can't DM a user on Twitter unless you're following that user and they also follow you back. You can still @reply to them, and they'll see it in their Mentions tab, which I don't know how many people check and how often.

You're entirely right about it being easy to search for keywords the company is interested in, so that it can know who is talking about it, though. Even more so with the new Streaming API... :)

more than 4 years ago

A How-To Website For Australian Voters

Looce Re:Slashdotted (158 comments)

500 KB Web fonts on a Slashdotted page... I guess one thing you can do now is replace that declaration with "font-face: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" everywhere.

more than 4 years ago

RIAA Calls YouTube-Viacom Decision Bad Public Policy

Looce Re:Arrrrr! (260 comments)

Just for future reference,

33,000 USD of hard drives, currently at about 1.5 TiB for 80 USD, is 633,600 GiB.

633,600 GiB can store 158,400,000 songs, at 4 MiB apiece.

The second trial of Jammie Thomas awarded the RIAA 1,920,000 USD for 24 songs, which comes out to 80,000 USD apiece.

For 158,400,000 songs, the RIAA would be awarded 12,672,000,000,000 USD (12 trillion short scale). That's only a bit less than the national US debt, which is 13,208,593,598,669 USD (13 trillion short scale) as of this comment!

more than 4 years ago

The Tuesday Birthday Problem

Looce Re:The other problem posed in TFA (981 comments)

It simply means that there is a 50% chance that Peter has a brother. Peter's sex is not given and it has 50% chance that it may be a girl. :)

It is given. "At least one of whom is a boy" means that the number of boys is guaranteed to be greater than 0. Therefore, one child is a boy, and I pinpointed him as being the given of the problem, and gave him a name to differentiate him from the other unspecified child. If the problem had stated "Exactly one of whom is a boy", then the probability of both children being boys is 0 (0%), because the number of boys is guaranteed to be greater than 0 and less than 2.

Assuming that all families have exactly 2 children with random sex distribution:

1. Is at least one of your children a boy? - Yes, it is. Then the possibility that your other child is a son is 1/3.

Because 75% of families have at least one boy and 25% have two boys.

You gave the right probability here, but for the wrong reason. "Is at least one of your children a boy?" answered in the affirmative means that you can now answer the question as if one boy was a given. The question now is, "Given that I have at least one son, what is the probability that I have 2 sons?"

Per this page, this can be written as P(2 sons | at least 1 son) = P(2 sons and at least 1 son) / P(at least 1 son) = (1/4) / (3/4) = 1/3.

And I just invalidated all of my other comments on this thread... Ouch!

*takes a huge bite of humble pie*

more than 4 years ago

The Tuesday Birthday Problem

Looce Re:The other problem posed in TFA (981 comments)

And now you're saying that it's twice as likely to have a girl as it is to have a boy?

You say:
P(Peter, Boy) + P(Boy, Peter) = 1/3
P(Peter, Girl) + P(Girl, Peter) = 2/3

Let's try to reverse-engineer this problem.

Would you agree that "I rolled a die and it landed on 6. What's the probability that it landed on 6?" yields a probability of 1 (100%)? That's because it's a given of the problem. We don't even have to know if it's unweighted, or 6-sided; it could be 100-sided, and it still wouldn't change the fact that it landed on 6. If you don't agree with this, then you say "the probability is undefined, because I have insufficient information about your die".

Would you agree that, in "I tossed a coin twice, and at least one of these landed heads. What's the probability of both having landed heads?", a given of the problem is that there was 1 Heads, and therefore that the probability we're looking for is 0.5 (50%) for the unspecified coin? If you didn't agree with saying that a given of a problem has P = 1, then the universe of the problem is {(H,H), (H,T), (T,H), (T,T)}, each occurring with equal probability, and the answer is 0.25 (25%). Note that, if you don't accept givens to problems, (T,T) is not impossible, because you ignore "and at least one of these landed heads".

The problem posed in TFA amounts to "My wife gave birth twice, and at least one of the children was a boy. That boy was born on a Tuesday. What's the probability of both being boys?" Therefore the problem is exactly like the two coin problem, with 1 boy being a given, and the birth weekday being extra information that isn't used in the problem's question therefore doesn't affect the resulting probability. What's the probability now?

more than 4 years ago

The Tuesday Birthday Problem

Looce The other problem posed in TFA (981 comments)

Suppose that Mr. Smith has two children, at least one of whom is a son. What is the probability both children are boys?

This is the question posed without the birth weekday specified. TFA actually tries to say that there are 4 outcomes for the pair of children, one of which is impossible, so they remove it. Since "boy, boy" is only one of the 3 outcomes, then the probability must be 1/3. Right?


The boy (let's call him Peter) being a boy is a given of the problem, so it has P = 1. The other child -- we don't care about it being born before or after Peter -- is independent, so the probability that it's a boy is 0.5*. The 4 outcomes are as follows:

Peter, Boy = 0.25*
Peter, Girl = 0.25*
Boy, Peter = 0.25*
Girl, Peter = 0.25*

So, whichever way we slice this problem, the solution is 0.5*.

P(Peter, Boy) + P(Boy, Peter) = 0.5*
1 * P(Other is Boy) = 0.5*

- - - - - -
* May slightly differ due to the male:female ratio at birth. It is assumed here to be 1:1.

more than 4 years ago

The Tuesday Birthday Problem

Looce Re:It's easy (981 comments)

I don't know about the chance of it landing heads up, but if you threw it up, it has a rather high chance of being damaged by your stomach acid...

more than 4 years ago

The Tuesday Birthday Problem

Looce Re:Ordering and Convergence (981 comments)

The problem is stated thus:

I have two children, one of whom is a son born on a Tuesday. What is the probability that I have two boys?

One of whom is not "exactly one of whom", so 'one' might be opposed to 'the other' or 'two'. All we know is that one of the problem poser's children is a boy born on a Tuesday. It states nothing about the relationship between the two children in time or space, so the probabilities are independent.

Further, the problem doesn't ask about any probability related to the second boy's birthday. The problem doesn't ask, e.g., What is the probability that my other child is a boy not born on Tuesday?. That makes the birth weekday completely irrelevant.

more than 4 years ago



"Cash for Clunkers" Program Ends On Monday

Looce Looce writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Looce (1062620) writes "U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced today that the "Cash for Clunkers" program, also known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, would end at 8 p.m. Monday because the $3 billion allotted for trade-ins has largely been depleted — two weeks earlier than expected. It had been anticipated that "Cash for Clunkers" would run until Labor Day. Rebate applications will not be accepted after 8 p.m., he said, and dealers should not make further sales without receiving all the necessary paperwork from their customers. Dealers will be able to resubmit rejected applications after the deadline."
Link to Original Source

Demonoid Going Down For Canadians

Looce Looce writes  |  more than 7 years ago

Looce (1062620) writes " reports that people outside Canada will now see on the homepage a news story saying:

We received a letter from a lawyer representing the CRIA, they were threatening with legal action and we need to start blocking Canadian traffic because of this. Thanks for your understanding, and sorry for any inconvenience.
... and people in Canada will see this instead, without the site navigation:

We received a letter from a lawyer represeting the CRIA, they were threatening with legal action and We need to start blocking Canadian traffic because of this. If you reside in Canada, that is the reason you are being redirected to this message. Thanks for your understanding, and sorry for any inconvenience.
The CRIA is the Canadian Recording Industry Association, an equivalent to the RIAA."

Link to Original Source



DHCP versus HDCP...

Looce Looce writes  |  more than 7 years ago

So here I was, today, reading Slashdot, when I decided to make a comment on an article that had only one (at the time of pressing Reply).

Little did I know, Slashdot users like to point out the typos in others' comments... And yes, I did mean HDCP in my comment, because DHCP definitely does not have a video path. Another poster answered with "What about BOOTP?"; not realising what they meant, I thought the answer was from an unknowledgeable user. I apologise for the - perhaps inappropriate - reply.

Though it's nice to know that some people read through my DHCP and dismissed this little detail because the context said "protected video path" :)

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?