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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Dying Man Shares Unseen Challenger Video 266

Posted by Soulskill
from the new-perspective-on-an-old-tragedy dept.
longacre writes "An amateur video of the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger explosion has been made public for the first time. The Florida man who filmed it from his front yard on his new Betamax camcorder turned the tape over to an educational organization a week before he died this past December. The Space Exploration Archive has since published the video into the public domain in time for the 24th anniversary of the catastrophe. Despite being shot from about 70 miles from Cape Canaveral, the shuttle and the explosion can be seen quite clearly. It is unclear why he never shared the footage with NASA or the media. NASA officials say they were not aware of the video, but are interested in examining it now that it has been made available."

Comment: Come on... (Score 5, Insightful) 294

by CWRUisTakingMyMoney (#28931685) Attached to: First Ever Criminal Arrest For Domain Name Theft
The first thing you can imagine the officer asked was, "What's a domain?"

I get it! Cops are all dumb, lazy, and technically illiterate!

Seriously, everyone. I know we all resent cops, but to imply that a whole department can't find a single officer who knows what a domain is is ridiculous and insulting. Let's try to keep our government/authority-hate at least sort of grounded in reality.

Comment: Re:Fake (Score 4, Informative) 220

by CWRUisTakingMyMoney (#28768977) Attached to: How They Built the Software of Apollo 11
Just to be pedantic, it was actually the Commander (Armstrong) who actually flew the LM to the surface, not the misnomered LMP, who mainly monitored things and called out warnings and readings. So if anyone said P66 (which the transcript doesn't indicate literally happened), it was more likely the Commander, who would've entered the program. The transcript has Armstrong saying "I'm going to..." when he goes into P66.
The Internet

+ - The Pirate Bay Sold to Swedish Software Company

Submitted by CWRUisTakingMyMoney
CWRUisTakingMyMoney (939585) writes "Swedish software company Global Gaming Factory X AB said on Tuesday it had agreed to buy free file-sharing website The Pirate Bay for 60 million crowns (USD7.7, EUR5.5, GBP4.69), and that it would find ways to compensate copyright owners for downloaded material. 'We would like to introduce models which entail that content providers and copyright owners get paid for content that is downloaded via the site,' said Global Gaming Chief Executive Hans Pandeya in a statement. No immediate word on when the sale will take effect, nor if/when the Pirate Bay as we know it will cease to exist."

Comment: Re:Just thought I'd ask. (Score 2, Interesting) 414

by CWRUisTakingMyMoney (#28522301) Attached to: Wikipedia Censored To Protect Captive Reporter
It probably has to do with the fact that, generally, MIA soldiers are identified publicly by the DoDâ"at least after a while. Once the Pentagon's gone public, there's no reason not to report on it. This sort of goes to my problem with some of the "double standard" replies here: It's true that the media tend to report widely on kidnapping victims when they're not kidnapped by terrorists, but instead by rapists or murderers or just plain crazy folk. I'm uncomfortable with the scope of some of this reporting, but it has a positive function in that it might just help people recognize a kidnap victim. Just like Amber Alerts. Now, the rules should change when terrorists are doing the kidnapping. Many Middle Eastern terrorists have shown a clear pattern of kidnapping, hyping, hyping, threatening, hyping, and then killing their captive, all for publicity and political ends. If the hype and publicity are denied them, they might not cross the line into killing. They're after a fundamentally different thing from what non-terrorists are after. Of course, part of the decision here was that it was a reporter, and the media like to protect their own for obvious and understandable reasons of human emotion; and sometimes (though not always) the media report on terrorist hostages even when it's detrimental to the hostages' interests, but what the Times did here was probably the right thing.

Comment: Ok, So How Would It Help? (Score 1) 387

by CWRUisTakingMyMoney (#28480721) Attached to: News Sites Slammed By Michael Jackson Traffic
Aside from being annoyed at the "cloud" buzzword I keep seeing, how (honestly, not rhetorical) would cloud computing help here? Wouldn't the often-updated news content (especially audio and video) still have to come, at its source, from CNN or whoever, since they're the ones writing/saying/videoing the news content? I must be missing something fundamental to cloud computing, so what is it, please?

Comment: OK.... (Score 3, Interesting) 169

by CWRUisTakingMyMoney (#27835959) Attached to: Churches Use Twitter To Reach a Wider Audience
I'm aware most of the people here probably don't practice a religion. I do. Troll on.

That said, this is ridiculous; just because a technology exists for something, you don't have to use it for everything. If you're truly interested in bringing your friends to (your) religion, Twitter's not gonna do it. You have to actually bring them into the building and break that ice by showing them that, no, you're not snake-handlers speaking in tongues or crazy terrorists preaching jihad or whatever. Besides, the reduction of religious beliefs to sound bytes by believers and non-believers alike is one of the most damaging processes to those who are religious. This will just end up backfiring on them and making them look like fools.

Comment: Re:Score for who? (Score 1) 646

by CWRUisTakingMyMoney (#27383897) Attached to: Mixed Outcome of Texas Textbook Vote
Yeah, I fail to see how this is bad news for anyone. OK, if the language is code for creationism and is taught accordingly, then that's bad. But if the curriculum is taught as the language says, then it's essentially a rephrase of scientific philosophy: nothing is set in stone, and somebody should always be looking for weaknesses in theories usually taken for granted, just in case they're wrong. Who knows, maybe one of them will find that something in commonly-accepted evolution theory doesn't hold. That's not to say that creationism wins, but human knowledge does. The tendency in this evolution vs. creationism debate of BOTH sides to cling to their beliefs no matter what is troubling. Scientists need to remain always aware that they're probably wrong in the details, and to resist change or criticism makes them no better than creationists.

[To clarify, I am not a fundamentalist creationist or anything like that; I believe in evolution. But I don't treat the prevailing theories necessarily as Holy Gospel. Pun intended.]

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite." -- Bertrand Russell, _Sceptical_Essays_, 1928