Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - SF Says AdWare Bundled with Gimp Is Intentional (google.com) 5

tresf writes: In response to a Google+ post from the Gimp project claiming that "[Sourceforge] is now distributing an ads-enabled installer of GIMP", Sourceforge had this response:

In cases where a project is no longer actively being maintained, SourceForge has in some cases established a mirror of releases that are hosted elsewhere. This was done for GIMP-Win.

Editor's note: Gimp is actively being maintained and the definition of "mirror" is quite misleading here as a modified binary is no longer a verbatim copy. Download statistics for Gimp on Windows show SourceForge as offering over 1,000 downloads per day of the Gimp software. In an official response to this incident, the official Gimp project team reminds users to use official download methods. Slashdotters may remember the last time news like this surfaced (2013) when the Gimp team decided to move downloads from SourceForge to their own FTP service.

Therefore, we remind you again that GIMP only provides builds for Windows via its official Downloads page.

Note: SourceForge and Slashdot share a corporate parent.

Comment Re:Stupid (Score 1) 387

We had one of those too, but the one we had was finicky and I think could only do a printout, not digital. So we started photographing the whiteboards. For the past 6 years, all my design work was done in the nearby conference room where the wall is "bumped" inward to form one seamless whiteboard around three walls. The corners are rounded, so you can draw diagrams anywhere. Panoramic images don't work, but normal stills do and are faster to take. My "documents" folder is mostly photographs at this point.

Comment Re:What is wrong with SCTP and DCCP? (Score 1) 84

...and good for that. Bad standards arise from committees sitting around spit-balling ideas. Good standards come from committees blessing existing practices already proven in the field. Maybe you smooth out a rough spot or two, but ultimately it ought to look for the most part like what's already out there working well. "Not in scope" was precisely the right response for most of the junk people wanted to throw into HTTP/2.0. Alas, it does give people who didn't their favorite feature thrown in ample opportunity to whine. Kamp's whining has the wonderful virtue of being amusingly self-contradictory. "History has shown overwhelmingly that if you want to change the world for the better, you should deliver good tools for making it better, not policies for making it better." Exactly. Trying to improve the world by setting policy via IETF standards, though, is exactly what the IETF did not do in this case, by not adding those things he thinks should be used as a matter of course, and that's what's making Kamp so mad.

Comment Re:I'd put a 'may' there (Score 2) 42

Snort. Because the democrats who dominated congress up to now have done sooo well at eliminating graft & pork. Hell, we can barely remember what those are thanks to the wonderful dems taking care of all that is wrong in the world and sprinkling fairy dust in our morning cereal...

Find a new axe to grind, your old one is worn out.

Pot, meet kettle.

The difference here, of course, is that neither side refrains from indulging in fatty pork products, but only one of them is claiming government spending is bad while doing so.

Comment Re:GCHQ Does Something Retarded (Score 1) 68

Buy a single damn video card. [...] That's likely why he thinks it's retarded... it doesn't solve any problems that aren't better solved by other solutions.

I'm not seeing how a single video card will help solve the problem of teaching how to build a cluster out of multiple networked computers. Nor would it look nearly as cool, which is directly relevant to the purpose of (to quote TFA) "getting children interested in science and engineering". It sounds like what GCHQ came up with succeeds much better at achieving the goals in question.

Submission + - Technology's Legacy: The 'Loser Edit' Awaits Us All (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The NY Times Magazine has an insightful article putting into words how I've felt about information-age culture for a while now. It's about a phenomenon dubbed the "loser edit." The term itself was borne out of reality TV — once an outcome had been decided, the show's producers would comb back through the footage and selectively paste together everything that seemed to foreshadow the loser's fall.

But as the information age has overtaken us, this is something that can happen to anyone. Any time a celebrity gets into trouble, we can immediately search through two decades of interviews and offhand comments to see if there were hints of their impending fall. It usually becomes a self-reinforcing chain of evidence. The loser edit happens for non-celebrities too, using their social media posts, public records, leaked private records, and anything else available through search.

The worst part is, there's no central place to blame. The news media does it, the entertainment industry does it, and we do it to ourselves. Any time the internet gets outraged about something, there are a few people who happily dig up everything they can about the person they now feel justified in hating — and thus, the loser edit begins.

Comment Re:Science,much? (Score 5, Informative) 33

we can only see 50% of it's surface on any given night

So which nights can we see the other side? Oh, never.

Actually, on any night other than the one precisely a lunar month from the given night, you can see some of that other side (the 50% you can't see tonight). That's what libration does -- expose some of that other 50% that you can't see tonight. Not all of it, sure, but some. You can only see 50% on any given night, but you can see 59% over time. Thus, 18% of tonight's "other side" will be "this side" on some other night.

Slashdot Top Deals

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Working...