Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - SF Says AdWare Bundled with Gimp Is Intentional-> 5

Submitted by tresf
tresf writes: In response to a Google+ post from the Gimp project claiming that "[Sourceforge] is now distributing an ads-enabled installer of GIMP", Sourceforge had this response:

In cases where a project is no longer actively being maintained, SourceForge has in some cases established a mirror of releases that are hosted elsewhere. This was done for GIMP-Win.

Editor's note: Gimp is actively being maintained and the definition of "mirror" is quite misleading here as a modified binary is no longer a verbatim copy. Download statistics for Gimp on Windows show SourceForge as offering over 1,000 downloads per day of the Gimp software. In an official response to this incident, the official Gimp project team reminds users to use official download methods. Slashdotters may remember the last time news like this surfaced (2013) when the Gimp team decided to move downloads from SourceForge to their own FTP service.

Therefore, we remind you again that GIMP only provides builds for Windows via its official Downloads page.

Note: SourceForge and Slashdot share a corporate parent.
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Stupid (Score 1) 387

by 3dr (#49726655) Attached to: Microsoft To Teachers: Using Pens and Paper Not Fair To Students
We had one of those too, but the one we had was finicky and I think could only do a printout, not digital. So we started photographing the whiteboards. For the past 6 years, all my design work was done in the nearby conference room where the wall is "bumped" inward to form one seamless whiteboard around three walls. The corners are rounded, so you can draw diagrams anywhere. Panoramic images don't work, but normal stills do and are faster to take. My "documents" folder is mostly photographs at this point.

Comment: Re:What is wrong with SCTP and DCCP? (Score 1) 84

by osu-neko (#49504907) Attached to: Google To Propose QUIC As IETF Standard
...and good for that. Bad standards arise from committees sitting around spit-balling ideas. Good standards come from committees blessing existing practices already proven in the field. Maybe you smooth out a rough spot or two, but ultimately it ought to look for the most part like what's already out there working well. "Not in scope" was precisely the right response for most of the junk people wanted to throw into HTTP/2.0. Alas, it does give people who didn't their favorite feature thrown in ample opportunity to whine. Kamp's whining has the wonderful virtue of being amusingly self-contradictory. "History has shown overwhelmingly that if you want to change the world for the better, you should deliver good tools for making it better, not policies for making it better." Exactly. Trying to improve the world by setting policy via IETF standards, though, is exactly what the IETF did not do in this case, by not adding those things he thinks should be used as a matter of course, and that's what's making Kamp so mad.

Comment: Re:I'd put a 'may' there (Score 2) 42

by osu-neko (#49361635) Attached to: Taxpayer Subsidies To ULA To End

Snort. Because the democrats who dominated congress up to now have done sooo well at eliminating graft & pork. Hell, we can barely remember what those are thanks to the wonderful dems taking care of all that is wrong in the world and sprinkling fairy dust in our morning cereal...

Find a new axe to grind, your old one is worn out.

Pot, meet kettle.

The difference here, of course, is that neither side refrains from indulging in fatty pork products, but only one of them is claiming government spending is bad while doing so.

Comment: Re:GCHQ Does Something Retarded (Score 1) 68

by osu-neko (#49271981) Attached to: GCHQ Builds a Raspberry Pi Super Computer Cluster

Buy a single damn video card. [...] That's likely why he thinks it's retarded... it doesn't solve any problems that aren't better solved by other solutions.

I'm not seeing how a single video card will help solve the problem of teaching how to build a cluster out of multiple networked computers. Nor would it look nearly as cool, which is directly relevant to the purpose of (to quote TFA) "getting children interested in science and engineering". It sounds like what GCHQ came up with succeeds much better at achieving the goals in question.

+ - Lockheed Martin Claims Sustainable Fusion Is Within Its Grasp-> 1

Submitted by SternisheFan
SternisheFan writes: Imagine a source of electrical power that uses water for fuel, produces byproducts that are totally safe and releases no air pollution. Then imagine that once it's up and running, it'll be so portable that an entire power plant could fit into the cargo hold of an airplane. Now, imagine that it'll be running in prototype form in five years and operating commercially in ten.

The fusion is powered by a combination of two isotopes of Hydrogen, Deuterium and Tritium, both of which occur in nature and which can be extracted from water. "Our studies show that a 100 MW system would only burn less than 20 kg of fuel in an entire year of operation," a Lockheed Martin spokesperson told eWEEK. "Tritium fuel is continually bred within the reactor wall and fed back into the reactor along with deuterium gas to sustain the reactions."
In other words, the fusion reactor creates most of its own fuel as part of its operation. The Deuterium gas is simply a normal hydrogen atom with an extra neutron, creating what is sometimes called "heavy hydrogen." Deuterium can be extracted from the hydrogen obtained from electrolysis of water. This may sound complicated, but it's a process that has been routinely performed in college physics projects.
While the fusion reactor does create a radioactive byproduct, it's recycled for use in the reactor itself. There is no radioactive waste problem such as exists with nuclear fission power plants. "The waste footprint is orders of magnitude less than coal plants which require huge landfills to contain the toxic ash and sludge wastes," the spokesperson said in an email.
"A typical coal plant generates over 100,000 tons of ash and sludge containing toxic metals and chemicals each year. The first generation of fusion reactors will run on Deuterium-Tritium fuel, but successive generations would use fuels that could eliminate the radioactivity altogether," she said.
Currently Lockheed Martin is in the process of testing a magnetic confinement bottle, where the Skunk Works team has apparently made significant progress. In terms of how a fusion reactor would be created, the magnetic bottle is the primary hurdle.
If that's accomplished successfully most of the science and engineering is known. However, that doesn't mean that building the prototype fusion reactor is a done deal. Lockheed Martin is looking for industry partners to help develop the Compact Fusion reactor into a real product.
The goal is to create a fusion reactor that can generate heat to use in existing power plants, where the reactor would replace existing fossil fuel combustion. This means that existing power generation and distribution infrastructure would be retained, which will dramatically reduce the cost of implementation and dramatically speed up deployment.
The existence of cheap, portable power will transform the world in many ways. A statement from the company envisions ships and aircraft with unlimited range, spacecraft that could reduce the travel time to Mars to less than a month.
Perhaps most important to the most people, it could bring vast amounts of power to anywhere on earth, providing among other things economical water desalination to developing regions of the globe, which are not only poor, but short of clean water, by removing energy scarcity as an insurmountable problem.
If Lockheed Martin can pull this off, and given the reputation of the Skunk Works for routinely doing the impossible, I suspect it will, the results will be transformative.
While it doesn't mean free energy, it does mean that the cost of nearly unlimited energy is very low, and with unlimited energy, there's no end to what can be accomplished. To say that the Skunk Works is on the verge of changing the world is an understatement. This development could well define the future.

Link to Original Source

+ - Technology's Legacy: The 'Loser Edit' Awaits Us All->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: The NY Times Magazine has an insightful article putting into words how I've felt about information-age culture for a while now. It's about a phenomenon dubbed the "loser edit." The term itself was borne out of reality TV — once an outcome had been decided, the show's producers would comb back through the footage and selectively paste together everything that seemed to foreshadow the loser's fall.

But as the information age has overtaken us, this is something that can happen to anyone. Any time a celebrity gets into trouble, we can immediately search through two decades of interviews and offhand comments to see if there were hints of their impending fall. It usually becomes a self-reinforcing chain of evidence. The loser edit happens for non-celebrities too, using their social media posts, public records, leaked private records, and anything else available through search.

The worst part is, there's no central place to blame. The news media does it, the entertainment industry does it, and we do it to ourselves. Any time the internet gets outraged about something, there are a few people who happily dig up everything they can about the person they now feel justified in hating — and thus, the loser edit begins.

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Science,much? (Score 5, Informative) 33

by osu-neko (#49008735) Attached to: Earth's Libration Visualized For the First Time Above the Moon's Far Side

we can only see 50% of it's surface on any given night

So which nights can we see the other side? Oh, never.

Actually, on any night other than the one precisely a lunar month from the given night, you can see some of that other side (the 50% you can't see tonight). That's what libration does -- expose some of that other 50% that you can't see tonight. Not all of it, sure, but some. You can only see 50% on any given night, but you can see 59% over time. Thus, 18% of tonight's "other side" will be "this side" on some other night.

Take an astronaut to launch.

Working...