Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Write Once Run Anywhere Can Work (Score 1) 78 78

by VernonNemitz (#48992365) Attached to: Facebook Brings React Native To Native Mobile Development
If the code is written in JavaScript, and if "anywhere" involves a compiler, not just an interpreter, then the performance of the software should be nearly optimal anywhere. And, somewhere along the years, I got the impression that JavaScript compilers were becoming rather popular. I might be mistaken about that, but the notion should still be true, that if every platform included a JavaScript compiler, write-once/run-anywhere could work.

Comment: Definition, please (Score 2) 219 219

by VernonNemitz (#48838835) Attached to: European Countries Seek Sweeping New Powers To Curb Terrorism
The word "terrorism!" can be mis-used, much like the word "treason!", if it is not formally defined in Law. So, if such a definition has not been codified, the politicians have no business requesting powers to do such things as "punish those who praise or do not readily condemn terrorism" --after all, the person you want to punish might be using a different definition than YOU used (the one YOU used was specifically intended to help you steal political power, see?).

Comment: In the US they picked the wrong chimp (Score 4, Interesting) 187 187

by VernonNemitz (#48654135) Attached to: Argentine Court Rules Orangutan Is a "Non-Human Person"
Look up "Washoe". Being able to communicate, even if only by sign language, is important. The average chimp doesn't communicate much better than other ordinary animals, like dogs. And humans can fail to be communicative, look up "feral child". The point here is that humans are naturally prejudiced in favor of themselves, thinking that characteristics associated with personhood (like communicative-ness) are automatically/naturally associated with biological growth. But the fact is (at least here on Earth), communicative-ness at the person-class level is a result of Nurture, not Nature. As a result, if certain other organisms also receive appropriate Nurture (like Washoe did), then those organisms are as likely as a human to qualify for personhood. So now look up Koko the Gorilla and Chantek the Orangutan. Equally logically, any organisms that don't receive appropriate Nurture, including humans, are going to qualify more as ordinary animals than as persons. (The default Natural condition, per biological development only, for a human is to be just a clever animal.)

Comment: duh, it doesn't have to be complicated (Score 1) 191 191

by VernonNemitz (#48608465) Attached to: Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography
Just draw lines from the North Pole to places where countries border each other, and each country gets that slice of the Arctic. For example, in-between the Bering Strait one line would be drawn between USA and Russia, toward the Pole. Where Alaska borders Canada. another line is drawn toward the Pole. That slice becomes claimable by the USA. Another line between Canada and Greenland would yield the Canadian slice. And so on.

Comment: Did they forget planetary migration? (Score 1) 62 62

by VernonNemitz (#48511815) Attached to: 'Mirage Earth' Exoplanets May Have Burned Away Chances For Life
It is known that some planets migrate closer to their stars during the early stages of star-system formation. So, a planet that forms outside the habitable zone, but migrate into the habitable zone after the intense-heat period, could still be a good prospect for life.

Comment: Change is coming, so... (Score 1) 516 516

by VernonNemitz (#48414567) Attached to: Rooftop Solar Could Reach Price Parity In the US By 2016
It seems to me that the energy utilities need to restructure their billing. I suggest dividing it into two parts, one of which is related to the need to pay for infrastructure maintenance and expansion, while the other is related to the energy they sell. The first part could be charged to every customer equally. The second would depend on energy usage. In places where the customers can sell energy to the utilities, the most reasonable answer was devised and implemented in various places years ago: Just install a second meter and think of the energy company as a middleman. You can't sell to the middleman at the same price you buy from him --and when you are a customer selling energy to the utility, you are essentially selling it to some other customer of the middleman. It would make sense for your sales price of energy to be equivalent to what the utility pays to generate it.

Comment: Re:A Casual Observation (Score 1) 401 401

by VernonNemitz (#48299357) Attached to: US Midterm Elections Discussion
I should have specified a longer-term history than just the past few years. Here is a nice long and detailed list. Enron, for example, and the recent banking-crisis-caused Recession, are Republican scandals, because they have never been interested in making sure businesses do honest dealings, and they block Democrat attempts for such oversight at every opportunity. (It is possible that the Democrats want to over-do it, but History shows we need more than Zero oversight, of business dealings.) Attempts to repeal the Clean Air Act is a Republican scandal (they don't care if they poison more millions of people with air pollution). Nixon was a Republican scandal. Reagan and Eisenhower weren't, but their underlings most certainly were scandalous. Attempts to reduce the Minimum Wage is a Republican scandal (millions of people are already living from paycheck-to-paycheck, and they want to make the situation worse?). Attempts to increase numbers of skilled foreign workers is a Republican scandal (preferring cheap labor over American labor; whatever happened to companies being willing to do OJT?). The entire Republican economic "trickle down" policy has been proved to not work, yet they still push for more of it, because it financially benefits them, and very few others. And per that list presented at the start of this message, lots more Republican politicians have been associated with financial shenanigans, than Democrat politicians.

Comment: A Casual Observation (Score 1) 401 401

by VernonNemitz (#48297471) Attached to: US Midterm Elections Discussion
If you step back and look at the history of scandals associated with political power, you might notice that, in general, Democrat scandals have tended to involve sex and drugs, and hurt a few people (along with the status of a high political office). Meanwhile, in general, Republican scandals have tended to involve money and power, and hurt thousands or even millions of people. It's tempting to predict that, if the Republicans gain control of the Senate, some sort of money/power scandal will result. One example: They might repeal part of Obamacare, the part that the Supreme Court associated Congress' power to tax --while keeping the part that requires everyone to get insurance. Because, after all, the majority owners of most big insurance companies are, largely, Republicans, and therefore would directly financially benefit from such a scandalous change. Remember that the preceding is just a possibility/example. If some sort of money/power scandal does happen, it will take time to plan, time to become manifested, and time to be discovered/exposed. So, it will be a while before anyone knows for sure, whether or not it was smart to give Republicans control of the Senate.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.