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


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re: Wrong! (Score 1) 485

Luckily western society tends to be more secular, but the government that, say, ISIS is setting up, is not like this. Christians here in America would like to have a government like that, where unbelievers are imprisoned or executed. Christians in the middle ages were exactly like this.

I spend a lot of time around Christians, both conservative and liberal. I have literally never heard a single Christian articulate anything like a desire to have unbelievers imprisoned and/or executed. Nothing even close to that.

Comment free, Free, and Better (Score 2) 136

In 1997 a friend told me about Linux so I checked out a book from the library (the book had a CD with Slackware). I installed Slackware (XFree86 worked out of the box*!) because it was free. Soon I was using Linux because it was Free. Eighteen years later I continue to run Linux because it is Better.

* I later switched from Slackware to RedHat because I could not figure out how to get rid of panning!

Comment Re:Where's The Content? (Score 1) 207

4k absolutely will solve the problem with blockiness in fonts—depending on the screen size. My phone (HTC One) has a 1920x1080 display that is absolutely stunning in its clarity. Can't tell with my eyes that the images are just dots; it's truly a beautiful display. I see no blockiness in any image or in text. Zero. Then again it's only a 4.7" display with that many pixels. I saw an 80" TV in the store the other day (also 1920x1080) and was stunned by the distance I had to be from it before I could no longer make out the individual pixels—several feet. Right next to it was a 65" 4k display; I had to get within a foot or so to make out the individual pixels. Granted, I wear corrective lenses, but the difference was remarkable. I would love to have a 4k display as my primary monitor.

Comment Re:El Reg anti-AGW propaganda again (Score 1) 786

Did you read the Nature article and look at figures 2 and 3? The trend is only down until the 19th century, then it's a steep upwards trend.

Sure did. You can pick several 100-year windows and see a similar upward trend. Long, sustained increase around 0. One similar to the one you reference around the year 600. Again, the TWO-THOUSAND-YEAR trend is downward, despite the several sharp-upticks along the way. The brief upticks are outweighed by the long drops.

As has been pointed out the window size used makes all the difference. For example, yesterday morning represented a 40 drop in temperature where I live. Oh noes! Global COOLING! That's compared to last week, though.

Are we aping our planet in pursuit of the American god named Profit? Yep. Should we be concerned about the dangers of coastal flooding? Yep. Does that justify the alarmist use of the hockey stick? Nope.

Comment Re:Not a problem (Score 1) 544

I couldn't care less about what you get to see, but I would like a filter flag that allows me to ensure my kids are not exposed to gratuitous violence and/or pornography until they are mature enough to deal with it.

To me it seems almost intentionally obtuse to not understand the use case for this.

I am flabbergasted that so many are finding this objectionable. The issue is a voluntary flag that screens out certain material that some find inappropriate, whether for themselves or for the children. The issue is not banning such material from Wikipedia or making it impossible—or even difficult—to access. This is not censorship (no one is suggesting the government control this flag). This is providing a tool to enable Wikipedia users to determine the kind of content they can access for themselves.

Comment Re:generally good news, but not entirely (Score 1) 46

Much worse, though, is that the court seems to find that the other factors all weigh strongly in favor of the defendant: the use is scholarly, it is of factual material, it has no material impact on the value or market for the works. Fair use isn't a matter of tallying up factors and giving the win to whoever has the most. The analysis is just supposed to help determine if the use is fair; courts can consider other evidence too, and can weight factors unevenly, or do basically anything else if it helps to decide the issue.

This is /. so I only read the summary, but what disturbs me is the judge's determination that the copyright holder could have made money and whether the university prevented it by using the copyrighted material. While copyright law allows for that determination (see 17 CFR 107), simply offering a copyrighted work for money should not effectively (and automatically) block fair use. I wonder whether this sets a precedent for this.

Comment Re:Sorry... mathematics nazi. (Score 1) 527


"We can reduce the size of the haystack when we are looking for that one-in-a-billion terrorist"

I hate it when people thoughtlessly mention large numbers in conversation when they clearly have no concept whatsoever of scale.

There are approximately 7 billion people in the world... so by the above gentleman's assessment, there would be only 7 terrorists, worldwide.


Sorry... pet peeve of mine.

I agree. If I've said it once, I've said it a trillion times: people shouldn't exaggerate.

Comment Re:Holy self-reference! (Score 5, Interesting) 405

And while we're at it, would DuckDuckGo's "small following on Slashdot" please enter and sign in with a few posts?

I've been using DuckDuckGo for some time, primarily for the privacy and lack of filtering based on my previous queries (finding political articles that are *not* slanted toward my bias, for example). However, during this time I've discovered that if I really need to find an answer to something I'm entering a `!google' into my search (which forces DuckDuckGo to use Google). :-\

Comment Re:Wow, he saves $12 billion, so 1% less deficit.. (Score 1) 2247

Yeah, that 1% really does a whole lot.

I know this is /. but the article does state that eliminating this spending is part of a trillion dollars in cuts in his first year. Five departments would be eliminated entirely while several more would be greatly reduced in size. So, yeah, twelve billion isn't a lot, but a thousand billion is.

Comment Re:aplenty (Score 1) 297

A 48 pack of alkalines from Costco, plus whatever is in the various devices (including probably 20 Eneloop/Imedion rechargables). There's probably over a dozen AAs just in remotes.

I have three kids. I'm thankful for Costco's batteries. They last as long as bigger name brands and cost much less.

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.