Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Last Chance - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:he should know better (Score 3, Interesting) 304

"Free speech" in a legal sense is indeed only about governmental intrusion, and the definition is largely specific to the US, so mentioning it for a UK matter is already not particularly relevant. It's not like Dawkins is claiming that what they are doing is illegal either.

What Dawkins is talking about is the principle, the ideal of free speech. That is applicable to anything and anyone, anywhere. You can most certainly decry a lack of free speech in any situation, even when concerning private corporations.

Comment Re:Though spoiled is a likely side effect... (Score 5, Insightful) 164

Actually, I think there's an opposite effect going on. I'd say the children born to wealthy parents, but not unbelieveably so, have the best chances. Being the child of Zuckerberg or Gates means you're growing up in a very unique position which isn't necessarily good for a child's development. It becomes hard to have "normal" social interactions, you have a completely out of whack understanding and relationship with money, etc. This goes even more so as a teenager, where the other teens will know who your parents are, which will heavily color their interactions with you. Plus, many of those parents tend to be extremely busy and it's very well known that parental presence is one of the most important factors in a child's development.

Comment Re:Want your freedom? Oppose importing terrorists (Score 3, Insightful) 291

This post is a perfect example of why social conservatism is stupid.

You want to oppose importing terrorists eh? How do you go about doing that, pray tell? First of all, just in case you weren't aware: all of the successful terrorist attacks that happened in France weren't caused by Syrian refugees. They were carried out by people who emigrated years prior, who'd been setup as sleeper cells until the time was right to strike. So what do you do to prevent them from entering the country? Prevent anyone who looks vaguely Arabic from entering? That's millions of people you're suddenly blocking there to prevent 0.01% of them (if that) from entering.

But that's not all, is it? There are already millions of them on your soil. Do you kick them out too? People who might've been here for generations, who have families, friends, a job and are perfectly normal citizens? Because if you don't, that leaves hundreds of possible sleeper cells around.

And then, that's not even solving the issue fully. There have been terrorist acts carried out by converted Westerners too. How do you go about preventing that? Ban Islam entirely? That's again millions of people, some of whom have been here for so many generations they're an integral part of your country's history. Plus, it won't really help, since those converted people know how to act "normally" since they've been raised that way and were only converted later on.

But no matter, even if you fixed that miraculously, you'd still have school shootings and crazies like Anders Breivik who are literally indistinguishable from the rest of your population and who can carry out atrocities just as well as that horrible Muslim you're so scared of.

Here's the funny thing too: regardless of where you stop in this dangerous trend, you've still created two classes of people: those who can live in your country and those who can't. You've removed their freedom to "protect" yours. You've failed to achieve what you set out to do, unless you are so egotistical to only care about yourself. And if you're American (which is a pretty good guess from the tone of your post and the website it was posted on), you've also gone against the one thing that made it into what it is: that everyone stands equal and everyone has a chance. Now you don't stand a chance if your skin is brown. Welcome to the Confederacy.

TL;DR: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Comment Re:Intel often communicates poorly. (Score 1) 167

Yields. When intel releases a new processor line, yields are still pretty low, especially towards the high end. That's why you have binning and so many different processors - so they can recycle a top-end processor as a mid or high-end processor should parts of it end up subpar (though this is more popular in GPUs these days).

As the line ages, yields improve and they generally iterate over the design in smaller ways to obtain even better efficiency or iron out issues. It's at that point that it becomes very appealing to release an improved flagship series (the -E branding) using the better yields. They're branded the same as the current line (so Broadwell-E is 6000 like Skylake processors) because they're still considered superior.

Comment Re:AMD's response? (Score 4, Informative) 167

HBM only works for stacking memory (hence why it's called High Bandwidth Memory). You can't stack CPU cores because they output waaaaaay too much heat. You can dissipate heat from memory passively, so stacking them and slapping an active cooler can work. Good luck stacking CPU cores in the same way.

Comment Re: Wrong specs on Skylake (Score 1) 167

Yeah, which is pointless because comparing clock speeds between different manufacturers has never meant anything. Your A10 still tanks against most Intel processors in any but the most parallel of use cases. Oh, and you do need a separate video card if you actually care about having a GPU. APUs are still laughably underpowered.

Comment Re:Microphone access. (Score 1) 223

Android Marshmallow has completely revamped the permission model so that permissions are explicitly requested the first time they are needed and can be denied individually. It was possible prior to that to block the usage of certain elements of the phone, but that took more work than most people would've bothered with.

Comment Re:Do Canadian Scientists respect the public? (Score 1) 197

You're saying that like scientists posting results and doing work is something new. They existed before Harper muzzled them, you know that, right? They didn't conform to ideologies either. Yet, there's exactly one government that decided they had to be controlled and their ability to talk restricted. One.

Our informal mission is to improve the love life of operators worldwide. -- Peter Behrendt, president of Exabyte