Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:Easy Solution (Score 1) 75

Perhaps what you really mean to say is that if you need glyphs that are not part of ascii to express something, then perhaps /. isn't the platform you need.

Referring to a textual glyph as an "image" is not really accurate. Heck, the classic smiley icon is more of an image than a thorn is, and you can type that using plain ascii.

Comment Re:The problem with 'smart' guns (Score 1) 411

But you seemed to miss the point I was making... which is that if that number is less than the number of accidental deaths that could be prevented by this kind of tech (and that number is entirely quantifiable, right now, as measured by how many people die every year from a gun fired by someone other than than gun's registered owner), then while the loss of life is always unfortunate, it's still a net win.

Comment Re:The problem with 'smart' guns (Score 1) 411

The use cases for the military and the police are quite different from the real world use cases for members of the general public, so a fair comparison could not be made just restricting a study to those groups. There are a known number of accidental gun deaths each year that could certainly be prevented with smart gun tech. If that number is less than the number of times that guns fail when they are supposed to, then obviously the tech doesn't help... but if the number of times that the gun fails to fire is small enough, then as I said... it's still a win.

Comment Re:The problem with 'smart' guns (Score 1) 411

Where do you get that 1% of the time the gun might not fire from?

I'm not saying that this wouldn't ever happen, but can you actually quantify the amount of time that would actually end up being fatal for the user?

It's a serious question, not a rhetorical one. I don't know if any studies have been done to figure out the number, but if it is any less than the number of people who *actually* get killed because someone other than the owner of a gun was using it, then it's still a win.

I believe the same argument is made for autonomous driving.... if it can save lives, it's a win.

Comment Re:AI is not real thinking (Score 1) 209

The only AI's that have to appear human are AI's that are *intended* to pass for human. AI is artificial intelligence, that is, intelligence that happens to be artificial. Full stop. Nothing more, nothing less. Any human-like characteristics that we desire to assign to an AI are entirely independent to what AI actually is, by definition, and are only circumstantially related to it in the sense that an as-yet unprecedented sophistication level of AI would need to be achieved to implement many of those characteristics.

Comment Re: This wil not work anyway (Score 1) 304

The only places in the area where I live that you could get to the airport for $5 on cab are the places that are close enough to walk there, because it costs $5 just to *GET IN* to a cab.... before you go even start to go anywhere. It is roughly a 30 minute drive on the highway from my place to the airport, and that trip adds another $50. If most of that money is going to the driver, they make a heckuva lot more per hour than I thought they did.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 151

Deprioritized packets = inferior quality usage to what one would otherwise have received at the time. So yes... somebody's usage suffers, even if that suffering is for the good of the many, it is caused by a policy that the ISP decided upon rather than by the physical demands that are being placed upon the network at the time.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 151

And, without it, you're limited to only being able to use the service in the absence of contention over bandwidth.

That is a limit.

True... but that is not a limit that is determined by the provider, that is a limit created only by whatever threshold the current demand exists on the service is as it approaches its own limitations to provide that service. It is limited in the sense of "limited" being an adjective, but it is not "limited" in sense of it being a verb because the provider is not actually limiting anything... the only limits that apply are physical limitations that the provider themselves is just as subject to as any of their customers. If a provider does not have the capacity to cope with the threshold of so-called unlimited bandwidth users without affecting everybody's ability to use the service, and if continued quality service for the largest number of their customers is genuinely important to that company to the point that they will deprioritize packets of particular customers based on their historical patterns of usage rather than only on whatever current demands they are placing on their network, then that company should not call the service unlimited in the first place. And even if everyone's usage suffers during periods of high congestion, nobody suffers during periods of lower congestion, so it is genuinely possible for companies to offer unlimited packages if they wanted.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 151

What you seem to be missing is that deprioritization of users who have already downloaded more than some threshold in the current billing cycle is still a *limit* on the level of service that those heavy users pay for. That they wouldn't be able to continue to get such service during periods of heavy congestion anyways is irrelevant because all users are affected equally at those times, and that is not a limit imposed directly by the provider but by the underlying physical architecture and the real-time demand for it.

You suggest that deprioritization increases your ability to use the service, but it does so by explicitly *limiting* the amount that you are allowed to use the service without deprioritization.

My objection is not that providers do this... my objection is only that they call a package "unlimited" when they have actually set a real limit on how much you can use it without deprioritization before they start deprioritizing your packets.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 151

If they are deprioritizing your traffic only after you exceed some threshold then that threshold is certainly and quite literally a *LIMIT* on that level of service, and they are relegating you to a different level of service after that point. While physical limits to usage will always exist, those limits apply to everybody equally, regardless of what level of service they have paid for, and are not artificially imposed upon you by a policy that the company has chosen to follow, even if that policy only exists to maximize the overall throughput of the greatest number of subscribers.

I have a cell phone plan with unlimited nation-wide calling anytime... I pay extra for this service, and I regularly make use of it. if the company decided to change my terms of service so that if should make too many long distance calls that month because they determine that they don't have the capacity to allow me to make the number of calls that I am and still provide acceptable service to other customers, and so they started limiting the quality of service for my phone calls for the remainder of that billing period, as reasonable as it might be for my cell phone service provider to do this, they aren't offering me the same package that I signed up for, are they? How could they continue to call it unlimited when they are imposing a hard limit on it

Slashdot Top Deals

Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?