Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re: Fallacy of Climate Control (Score 1) 248

I want to add if the rains never return to Calif, this will be very serious.

It seems unlikely that the rains will never return. The more serious threat of climate change over the longer term is that drought patterns may be exacerbated.

Those claiming that rains will not only find themselves discredited when the rains return (as they assuredly will), they will have provided more ammunition to those determined to stymie meaningful action on anthropogenic Global Warming. Don't do it!

Comment Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior (Score 1) 337

And as to your opinions of my needs

My opinion merely agrees with yours: Australia and you are a poor match. In the event, I was also agreeing with your main point, to wit, that Australians enjoy too few civil rights. But that's merely incidental, this is all about YOU.

I told you that you'd find my views incomprehensible

And in that you could not have been more wrong. You are (at least in respect of this topic) an open book. A book, notwithstanding your quirky self-image as "DANGEROUS," read many times before. The only thing approaching "baffling" is how someone who so compulsively writes about themselves can imagine they are any less transparent than a clear plastic bag. You're a legend in your own lunchtime mate.

Comment Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior (Score 1) 337

Its what I need to immigrate. Without that... I refuse. You're not offering me real citizenship in my opinion if you don't offer me a reasonable set of iron clad rights in the package.

We're not offering you citizenship at all. This is for wealthy and successful business people and by invitation only. And with all due respect, if you have such a great need to be DANGEROUS ... fine, just please do it elsewhere thanks. You'd also hate, I'd hazard, the duty to vote which pertains to Australian citizenship.

OTOH a Bill of Rights (along the lines of the 4th and 5th rather than the 2nd) for Australia might be a good thing. A basket of "iron-clad rights" would be nice just about now. Unfortunately changing the Australian Constitution is exceedingly difficult and a Bill of Rights is unlikely to make it past a population which harbours a (to me) baffling scepticism regarding such instruments.

Comment Re:Just doing their job. (Score 1) 136

The job of the NSA is to spy and if they don't spy on everything spyable they aren't doing their job. Can't even figure out why this would worthy of a ./ headline.

The issue here is not so much that the NSA spied on the French president. The issue is that said spying has been revealed. That will always rate a mention.

I imagine the French, and anyone else, fully expect US (and every other nation's) intelligence services to try to spy on them. However, once the beans have been spilled the French President can hardly respond with a simple 'méh!'

What is interesting for the rest of us, and the reason it merits a /. headline, is that our prior suspicions are receiving documentary confirmation.

Comment Re:Yes it matters (Score 1) 668

Hence why I specifically said that the mandatory label should clearly state that they have no medical efficacy. I doubt they'd sell many "remedies" that way, but if they want to try, I don't see why not.

The problem with that is that because the effect of homeopathy relies exclusively on the belief in its efficacy, requiring such labels runs the risk of lowering the rate of desirable placebo cures. If someone can drink a little vial of water and be cured of, say, electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome (and remember, modern medicine has no treatment for EHS ;), that is a good thing.

The real issue is how to stream patients who require something more substantial than water away from homeopathy and towards that suitable therapy.

Comment Re:Open source language (Score 3, Insightful) 246

the critical question for a programming language is less whether it is itself open source and more whether it's feasible to make open source software with it.

I have to disagree - a language which only has one single implementation which is closed source means that the developers using it is locked in and completely at the mercy of the owners of this implementation. Just like with VB6.

The point that was being made was simply to raise the question: Will an open-sourced Swift have any realistic application other than writing software exclusively for iOS and OSX. If it can't, you should find yourself every bit as locked in and at the mercy of the owners of the ecosystem, as if you were locked in by the owners of a proprietary language.

Do not underestimate the value of print statements for debugging.