Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Does Denmark... (Score 4, Informative) 184

by TheSunborn (#48608777) Attached to: Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography

No, Denmark is going to let Greenland be independent as soon as they want to. The sooner the better.

But Greenland can't afford that right now.

75% of the income for Greenland, is direct economic support from Denmark. Think about that: They would lose 75% of their income without Denmark, which is the only reason they are not independent yet.

Comment: Re:Then don't sign the contract (Score 3, Insightful) 189

by TheSunborn (#48476125) Attached to: Behind Apple's Sapphire Screen Debacle

I newer understood the "not installing a backup power supply for each furnace" situation.

Who owned and was responsible for the factory? The story has always been that GT produced Sapphire, and that apple maybe wanted to buy it.

So why did GT let apple control anything at all, about their factories?

From the article " after five months Apple demanded a major change in terms, requiring GT to supply the sapphire itself. In fact, Apple wanted GT to build the world’s largest factory to produce the stuff"

So If Apple wanted GT to supply the sapphire, why did they have any say in the day to day running of the factories. Sounds like GT gave far to much factory control to Apple for no reason at all.

Comment: That is not what the halting problem say (Score 2) 335

Sorry, but that is not what the halting problem say.

The halting problems state that "For any interesting property(In this example: "Is this robot code safe to run") there exists programs with this property, but where you can not prove that the program has the property.

That is: There exists robot programs which are safe to run, but where we can newer prove that they are safe.

And the general solution is to only run programs where we can prove that they are safe. This mean that we do reject safe programs because we can't prove that they are safe*, but it does not in any way change the programs which we can express. That is: For any program which is safe, but where safety cant' be proved, there exists a program which behave in exactly the same way for all input, but which is safe.**

*If we can't prove that a program is safe, then it is either because no such prof exists, or it is because we are not good enough to prove it.

**No this does not contradict the halting problem, due to the assumption that the program is safe. If the program is not safe, then the transformation will convert the program to a safe program which obviously will not do the same

Comment: Re:Oracle (Score 4, Informative) 146

by TheSunborn (#48102327) Attached to: Google Takes the Fight With Oracle To the Supreme Court

Nobody ever said that Microsoft could not ship their own version of the JRE, and Microsoft newer made their own JRE.

Microsoft distributed a modified version of suns jre, based on source code licensed from Sun. And it was sourcecode licerse, which gave Microsoft problems. If they had just made their own jre, anything would have been fine(Except for the fact that they might not have called it Java(tm)

Comment: Re:Stay out of our business then..... (Score 1) 993

Sorry, but that is just wrong. He wrote a better(Or worse, depending on who you ask. I would say better) init system, but the decision to use it and thus to wrack your* init system was taken by the different Linux distributions.

*And no it's not your init system. Using something does not make it yours. It would only be yours if you had your own distribution, and in that case you could continue to use what ever backward init system you wanted.

Physician: One upon whom we set our hopes when ill and our dogs when well. -- Ambrose Bierce