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


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Fun with EM sensitivity (Score 1) 528 528

There have been a handful of people who've come into my place of work, looked up at our lights and have said, "I'm so glad that you have incandescent lighting. Fluorescent lights really bother my EM sensitivity" or something to that effect. All of our lights are CFL (but look like incandescent).

Comment: Re:What an amazing surprise! (Score 4, Informative) 181 181

When you strongly regulate something the effects are negative for the consumer!

You must be living in some kind of bizarro reality. Internet connections are NOT regulated at all, right now. Things will improve when Internet connections fall under the auspices of the FCC.

Comment: Re:I wonder... (Score 4, Interesting) 277 277

Some people need a new version of the OS because the old one did not do something they felt they needed. Hard core gamers tend to fall into this category which is why the directX program was so vital to Microsoft for the last 15+ years.

Kid, I hate to break it to you, but most Windows users are business users. Businesses upgrade when they need to. There have been plenty of good reasons to move to Windows 7 from Windows XP that have nothing to do with games.

WebAssembly: An Attempt To Give the Web Its Own Bytecode 126 126

New submitter Josiah Daniels writes with this kernel from a much more detailed article at Ars Technica about what already looks like a very important initiative: WebAssembly is a new project being worked on by people from Mozilla, Microsoft, Google, and Apple, to produce a bytecode for the Web. WebAssembly, or wasm for short, is intended to be a portable bytecode that will be efficient for browsers to download and load, providing a more efficient target for compilers than plain JavaScript or even asm.js

Comment: Re:And so the cycle of "reform" continues (Score 1) 851 851

His point is we have sufficient evidence that current legal dictates with respect to food will likely be wrong,

No, we don't. You make it sound like most nutritional science in the past 40 years has been wrong. On the contrary, most has been correct, and very little has been reversed. For every scientific discovery that changed a position re nutrition, I'd imagine that there are another 99 that are still deemed to be correct.

Comment: Re:And so the cycle of "reform" continues (Score 1) 851 851

Yes, "force of law" decisions. Make it sound sinister. I have to drive only 35 mph down the street in front of my house because of the FORCE-OF-LAW. I can't buy heroin because of FORCE-OF-LAW. I can't murder somebody because of FORCE-OF-LAW.

Considering that nobody can travel through time to see the future of science, yes, I think that we, as a society, should be making the best possible decisions that we can based on the science of today. Under your logic, there should be no laws, because somebody may be wrong about something, and we won't discover it until far into the future, right?

Real computer scientists don't program in assembler. They don't write in anything less portable than a number two pencil.