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


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Yes (Score 1) 684

The entire populous can be wiped out, so there's no need for significant boots on the ground. Small arms fire erupts? drop a couple tons of explosives in the area and call it good.

Who is attacking whom in that scenario?

Seriously. Who is it?

Because you're postulating an attacker trying to exterminate 350 MILLION people in the USofA without any other country being able to stop them.

That might sound good as a thought experiment but it runs into problems in the real world.

Comment Re:Yes (Score 5, Informative) 684

You're on the wrong point.

But even there-- how much regulation is "well regulated" without shading into the "abridging" region?

"Well regulated" means "trained" or "skilled" in that context at that time. The SCOTUS has already ruled on that.

And "militia" means most male citizens (between certain ages).

But neither of those are an issue because the last part says:

... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And the SCOTUS has also ruled on who "the people" are in that context.

Comment Re:Translations (Score 2) 392

All systems require support.

No one is saying that installing Linux means that you do not have to pay for any of the standard costs associated with a system.

And remember that the opposition NEEDS to find a cause to champion that is contrary to the current system. Otherwise they aren't the opposition.

Whether or not their complaints are valid is irrelevant. That's how politics works.

Comment Re:"Evildoer"? Seriously? (Score 1) 494

I will never vote for someone who uses the word "evildoer".

Yep! Why the fuck does that word keep showing up in political statements? It makes them sound like children.

"If you create encryption, it makes it harder for the American government to do its job â" while protecting civil liberties â" to make sure that evildoers aren't in our midst."

Except that the majority of "evil" done in this country is NOT encrypted. It is publicly displayed and celebrated.

Comment Re:Uh, what's the problem? (Score 3, Insightful) 242

I think that it is more about chasing the flavour-of-the-month.

Is it enough to be on AOL?
No? How about MySpace?
Okay, is LiveJournal acceptable then?
And so forth.

If you're looking for YOUNGER programmers then you look for them where YOUNG people hang out.

But don't demand that OLDER programmers try to socialize the way that younger people do.

Comment Stupid question. (Score 5, Interesting) 242

If you have X years of programming experience, then you should be able to sell yourself based upon that.

Social media and such would be useful to programmers JUST STARTING THEIR CAREERS.

BUT! If you are an older programmer you DO need to keep expanding your knowledge. Learn newer languages / systems.

Comment Re:Custom firmware (Score 2) 373

That's not that feasible: they use the consumer-area electronics a lot now to allow configuration of the more critical systems, and to read data from them.

It's not feasible to lock my front door, because my house was built with a non-stop conveyor belt running from the mailbox to the kitchen.

The entire point of this ask-slashdot is to identify cars that DON'T integrate entertainment systems and wireless access with the safety critical electronics. Cars that DON'T do the dumb&dangerous stuff you just listed.

Data flow *from* the primary systems *to* entertainment&wireless systems is marginally acceptable, if it's a physically enforced one-way data flow using optocouplers or something.

I seriously want each car manufacture to have one employee on staff, who's sole job is say "YOU'RE FIRED" every time any idiot engineer wants to permit ANY data flow from entertainment-or-wireless systems into safety-critical systems. I don't care how limited the APIs are, I don't caret how encrypted it is, I don't care how cryptographically-secure the certificates are. If there's data flow into critical safety systems, it's effectively certain that it's going to be vulnerable. You don't connect safety-critical systems to wireless input, period.


Comment Re:Why hasn't anybody forked Firefox already? (Score 2) 294

I haven't used it much yet, but Pale Moon may be what you're looking for. It's a fork of Firefox. The development design choices favor privacy, user-control, and improving speed&stability by dumping rarely-wanted code. Examples: They removed the Parental Controls code, they're excluding the new Firefox DRM support, they dumped support code for obsolete CPUs, they dumped some of the code for handicap-accessibility, and they currently removing phone-home code for crash reports and other potentially privacy-violating telemetry.

I haven't seen specific mention of it, but I'm certain there's no way in hell they will implement Mozilla's new policy of *prohibiting* you from loading any extension that hasn't been reviewed&approved&signed by Mozilla.


Comment Re:Tired... (Score 2) 294

In the next release or two, Firefox is going to start blocking you from loading any extension that hasn't been approved and signed by them. People have been SCREAMING on their message boards for a way to disable/override this, but they flat out refuse. The only way to get around it is to install a non-standard browser executable.


Comment Mod parent up. (Score 1) 67

From TFA:

"What weâ(TM)re talking about here is a means of mind control on a massive scale that there is no precedent for in human history." That may sound hyperbolic, but Robert Epstein says itâ(TM)s not an exaggeration.

Except that it is an exaggeration.

What they didnâ(TM)t know was that the search engine had been rigged to display the results in an order biased toward one candidate or the other. For example, in the most extreme scenario, a subject would see 15 webpages with information about Gillardâ(TM)s platform and objectives followed by 15 similar results for Abbott.

So if someone searched for material on Abbott ... it would show sites for Gillard?

Like if you did a search for how to do something in Linux ... but all you got back were Microsoft pages.

I'd dump that browser. Is that an option? If not, then your "research" is flawed.

Very few subjects noticed they were being manipulated, but those who did were actually more likely to vote in line with the biased results. "We expect the search engine to be making wise choices," Epstein says. "What theyâ(TM)re saying is, 'Well yes, I see the bias and thatâ(TM)s telling me ⦠the search engine is doing its job.'"

More likely that they didn't care enough to void your "research".

But merely changing which candidate appeared higher in the results still increased the number of undecided Indian voters who would vote for that candidate by 12% or more compared with controls.

So someone who cannot be bothered to do any research on the people who are actually running is 12% more likely to vote the way a computer suggests s/he should?

How about another experiment where something positive is compared to something negative? How would you go about manipulating the search results to that "kick me in the face" is chosen over "give me ice cream"?

Undecided voters are undecided because:
a. there isn't any real difference between politicians.

Give them a reason to care and see if the results are the same.

Comment MIT professor Ju Li (Score 1) 35

The new findings, which use aluminum as the key material for the lithium-ion battery's negative electrode, or anode, are reported in the journal Nature Communications, in a paper by MIT professor Ju Li and six others.

In related news, MIT professor Ju Na has some exiting discoveries in Sodium technology.


Oh, so there you are!