Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Yes to Brexit (Score 2) 355

The irony is that the UK is a net beneficiary of immigration. Immigrants work in the UK, pay their taxes and then return to their own countries before they burden the UK for services that those taxes pay for - benefits, pension, NHS etc.

That isn't to say that all immigrants are welcome of course and some of them are decidedly unwelcome (trafficked slaves, criminal gangs etc.). But it's overblown by the media, particularly those adept at pushing the fear button on their readers like the Daily Mail, Telegraph etc.

Comment: Re:Yes to Brexit (Score 1) 355

Bizarre. The EU has a European parliament with directly elected members from each country with legislative powers. And it has an executive European Commission where each country is represented by a commissioner that they appoint that sets policy (to be voted upon). Plus of course every country has national governments. And local governments. So yes it's a democracy.

It's also clear that you're skipped set theorem and logic when you leapt to the wrong conclusion about what I wrote.

Comment: Re:Yes to Brexit (Score 1) 355

Scotland's independence vote was another example of rationality going out of the window. The SNP wrapped a saltire around a bunch of lies about oil reserves and the standard of living that independence would bring when the reality was it would have been economic and financial suicide. The same applies for the UK and leaving the EU. It might feel good to leave but it sure as heck isn't rational and many studies conclude that the UK's GDP would be permanently reduced if it did.

Ironically the SNP are pro-Europe which makes it all the more bizarre. How can union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland be bad but union with France, Germany etc be good? Same for Sinn Fein. So it's likely if the UK left Europe that Scotland would break from England and become part of the EU. I could see Northern Ireland doing the same. What fun that would be.

Comment: Re:Yes to Brexit (Score 5, Insightful) 355

Most rational people recognize Britain should be part of the EU. Unfortunately UKIP spooked the Conservative party and they made a bunch of promises about negotiations and a referendum to leave.

Leaving would be economic suicide so I expect Cameron will extract some concessions to persuade people to stay in and dodge that bullet. Because if he doesn't it's likely that the UK will leave the EU and Scotland and Northern Ireland would leave the UK. That would be Cameron's legacy and he knows it as much as anyone. It's probably why the Conservatives are already trying to take the bite out of some of the pro-exit talking points by tackling illegal immigration at the moment.

Comment: Re:Not sure if smart or retarded (Score 1) 204

TinTin could certainly be used for cheating but it also had some useful functionality - hilighting useful info, aliases, command history etc. I expect most people who used it did so in a relatively light manner. They probably had it set to flee if a battle proved too much, had aliases to loot, wear all, hilights for whispers etc,

I don't know what constitutes bot use in WoW but if the bot is designed to enable automated levelling then it's a big no-no. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the gold farmers have such bots running on an almost factory-like basis.

Comment: Not surprising the future is swift (Score 1) 270

by DrXym (#49673109) Attached to: Swift Vs. Objective-C: Why the Future Favors Swift
You only have to look at Obj-C code snippets for trivial things like string concatenation to realise what a horrible experience it is. So it's no wonder that Swift is so popular given that it resembles more high level languages like Typescript, Ruby or Python. That said, it's still as proprietary as its predecessor. Nobody but OS X devs will want to touch it unless it becomes a cross platform tool.

Comment: Re:RC Rules (Score 2) 110

I see it another way. If you have a RC drone then chances are you won't let it out of your sight because if you can't see it you can't control it. So you are naturally more cautious about where you fly it, how you fly it and to what distance you allow it to fly.

Conversely these "set it and forget it" drones can be programmed to fly miles. You set a course, off it goes and you'll see it again 20 minutes later. Assuming it hasn't hit a tree, power / cable line, or a bird, or a plane, or been flipped by the weather, or simply suffered a fault and fallen out of the sky. The drone is also likely to be programmed to fly over points of interest which may be roads, buildings, cities etc.

That's where the danger lies. The risk for the operator has disappeared and a laissez faire attitude which could put other people at greater harm.

What sin has not been committed in the name of efficiency?