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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Why do they not have the paper as backup? (Score 1) 263

Umm, that would defeat the whole purpose of using them. Reduced weight of not carrying paper means less fuel, more savings.
If you carry the paper as a backup, then why bother as there will be no savings in fuel or paper.

So before the iPad, did they have a single paper copy? Or did they have more than one, for backup purposes? If they had multiple copies, then replacing all except one with an iPad would be a valid way to save weight, but still have a reliable backup.

Comment Re:Wow ... (Score 1) 263

This is a fail because they could have continued to carry the physical copy of everything needed as a Plan B.

I did not see any information about whether or not the still carry a physical copy as a backup. If it were up to me, I would do just that. And since the physical copy is the backup, not the primary, I would not begin a flight unless I knew that both my primary (iPad) and backup (paper) were both available and working.

Comment Re:Does it matter? (Score 4, Insightful) 52

If there was any chance that the victim didn't believe that you would return all the data, then they would not pay.

I'm not so sure of that. As a victim, you are aware that you have about 0% chance of getting your data back if you don't pay the ransom (unless you had a good backup setup somewhere). So you pay because you believe your data is important enough to justify the risk. This is similar (though nowhere near the same level) as someone demanding a random because they kidnapped your child. You already are well-aware that they are not trustworthy, but you really don't see an alternative.

Now, I do agree with your other point. If news was out that people paying the random did not get their data back, then I'm sure a smaller percentage of victims would be paying. But some would still pay, because their data is important enough to them that they hold on to that small hope that they might get it back.

Comment Re:ESPN can go eff themselves. (Score 1) 329

The 80's predicted cable would expand to thousands of channels. Hyper specific channels so at any one time you could find the exact programming you desire and keep your eyeballs glued to the screen.

I think all this packaging is exactly why we don't have such channels (on TV). If all channels were ala carte, then there would be motivation to produce the sort of content that each group of people want. Instead, everything is grouped into packages. This prevents individuals from making their preferences known with their wallets, thus the programming we see is the drab sort of thing that appeals to as wide an audience as possible.

Comment Re:Have we solved all human rights issues? (Score 2) 336

Have we solved all human rights issues so we now moved on to grant animals personhood?

While I'm not disagreeing with you, I really dislike this question. Have we solved all problems on Earth that we should start exploring space? Have we solved all problems in America so we should start developing a foreign policy? Have we solved all problems in physics that we can now move on to chemistry?

Simply put, we don't have a clear queue of problems, and probably never will. And even if we did, not all problems can be solved faster by having more people work on them, so it will always make sense to be working on multiple problems at a time.

Comment Seldon chose Terminus for a reason (Score 1) 365

Hardly proof, but in Asimov's Foundation series, the Encyclopedists were setup on a resource-poor planet. This caused them to develop highly efficient technology, including things like pen-sized nuclear reactors. The point I'm making is, if we were hit with disaster, we will find a way to re-build, but we may end up building things quite differently than before, depending on what resources are available. No matter what, it'll suck for the first few generations, but assuming we survived, it's at least plausible that we could come out better for it in the future.

Comment Re:Leave then (Score 1) 886

"Marriage" is a word describing a union of a man and a woman, removing them from their parents' households and joining them as the foundation of a new family unit. This word, and the corresponding words in other languages, have been understood this way for thousands of years.

I'm not a part of my parents' household. Does this mean that for me, "marriage" is impossible?

Comment Re:Changes based on the Season (Score 1) 304

It depends where you live. If you have to share a small street, made smaller by piles of snow, with cars, then biking may become significantly more dangerous in the winter. If there are dedicated bike lanes, then the story will be different.

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...