Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 2) 588

Sure, but imagine a kid as agoraphobia and can't stand being in the open air. Is it reasonable for the parents to expect the school to put the football field inside of a building so the kid can be on the team? Also there is absolutely no evidence that EHS itself exists, which is what the parents claim. The child would be better off if the parents admitted that it was a psychiatric disorder and started getting the kid treatment for it. The ADA has limits on what accommodations an employer, or school has to make for somebody disabled. My understanding is they tend to be limited to making spaces mobility-accessible and ergonomic accommodations to their personal workspace/desk and not wide-ranging changes to the work environment to accommodate a severe psychological disorder.

Comment Re:Seriously... (Score 4, Insightful) 245

The problem, as I understand it, in standardized (CORE) testing in mathematics is not that ALL the students are made to learn how to add, subtract and multiply, but that the test makes extremely specific assumptions about PRECISELY what method that the student was taught in order to make use of those operations. For example, I believe it is common for the standardized tests to assume that students do all of their basic arithmetic by using number-lines in a very specific way. If, instead, the student was taught to do arithmetic using any of the MANY, MANY other methods out there instead of the number-line method (which I personally think is slow and stupid) they will flunk because they must show every step of the problem on a number-line, regardless of the resulting answer the student supplies.
I can't imagine a more soul-sucking task for a teacher then to have to re-teach their students how to do their math problems in an objectively WORSE manner than the one that the teacher had been, JUST so that the class doesn't fail their standardized tests and the teacher/school isn't penalized. This is exactly how you discourage passionate individuals from becoming teachers.

Comment Re:Fucking Lawyers (Score 1) 181

Sorry, momentarily confused Wine and Mono. Wine has never been legally challenged by Microsoft and the development of it has been done clean-room, leaving MS with no legal recourse unless they can demonstrate otherwise. Personally, I don't think they care at all about the existence of wine at this point.

Comment Re:Fucking Lawyers (Score 1) 181

MS has basically gifted the Win32 and .NET APIs to Wine. MS is actually now actively involved in Wine's development. (Believe it or not) Wine is now a targeted and supported runtime environment for ASP.NET5, meaning that if something in ASP.NET5 fails to work on Wine, MS will either work around it in ASP.NET5 or help contribute a patch to Wine (if it's a bug in Wine). Samba's legal situation has been more contentious in the past, with MS basically insisting that it was impossible to reverse-engineer it without breaking license agreements. Ultimately, 8 years ago, Samba, MS and the courts hand-waved together an arrangement that allowed a 3rd-party organization (PFIF) to legally provide the technical specifications to the Samba group.

I see these as being two pretty different things, though. Wine is an implementation of Win32 (and .NET), which is an API specifically provided to the general public as a development API right from the very beginning. Samba is an implementation of a bunch of networking protocols that were originally only intended to be implemented by MS itself, or partners that were very deep in bed with them.

Personally, I believe that either of them should be allowed to be reverse engineered, but they're still somewhat different.

Comment Re:Fucking Lawyers (Score 4, Informative) 181

Having had personal technical experience with both Java ME and Android, I gotta say that from a technology point of view, Java ME was a complete and total dead-end. It was far, far different from vanilla desktop/server java than Android is and therefore had practically zero notice or integration with the Java ecosystem. It was designed to work within the restrictions of devices that had single or double-digit CPU MHz and RAM MBs. It was modelled around Java 1.1, with almost no new language features or APIs. RIM used it as the basis for Blackberry and as a developer, I can tell you it was a decision they regretted.

Android is essentially vanilla Java with only the most esoteric of APIs removed from it, and then device-specific APIs placed on top of it. You can use 95% of existing java desktop/server libraries without any modification. If Google was given the option of using Java ME absolutely for free, or developing their own language and APIs, I guarantee they would have made their own because there would have been a riot among their software developers who would have been forced to essentially develop all of the libraries and google apps using the software equivalent of alphabet blocks and duplo. The additional "device profiles" that were subsequently released were too little, too late and hardly any of them were adopted into devices. I can't imagine any situation where Google would have paid Sun or Oracle for a Java ME license.

Comment Re:This is an old tactic (Score 1) 223

How does a tool that allows you to re-work your existing iOS or Android source projects into Win10 projects compare to a tool that allows you to convert a document from 1-2-3 or WP into Excel/Word? Or rather, how could it possibly lock a software developer into the Windows platform? This is more like a life-support tactic to allow developers to publish to mobile Windows with minimal effort, with the hope that the platform catches enough traction that developers would start developing native Windows 10 mobile apps. This is identical to what Blackberry did with BB10 to allow developers to publish Android apps that supported it (which I've done at my work). That certainly did absolutely nothing to lock me into the BB10 platform (though it did not make me want to develop for the platform any more than I did).

Comment Re:Yes, can we do this to Microsoft? (Score 1) 223

Why would they want to do this? MS providing a "reworking"/"publishing" tool that lets you easily port iOS and Android apps to Win10 means that more developers are targeting non-MS platforms as their primary platforms. This sounds more like MS is signalling, "We haven't been very successful with this, so we're going to follow your lead for now." There's been a pretty radical culture change in the DevTools/Frameworks/Runtimes teams at Microsoft, signalled by the fact that all of their core runtimes and web frameworks are 100% open source (APL2), published on GitHub ( and are directly accepting and responding to issue reports and pull requests on these projects. Their new DNX runtime (in preview right now) targets Windows, Linux and MacOS (through Wine, which they are contributing to) and (almost) all of their example code for the new ASPNET5 frameworks is developable and deployable on all three platforms.
3 years ago I would never imagine myself ever recommending any MS development tools to anybody, but here I am now
Btw, Visual Studio 2015 Pro is now 100% free for small organizations or open source projects (branded as Community edition).

Comment Re:Submarines are the undisputed... (Score 1) 439

I think you might misunderstand how sonar scales in range and intensity. Think of water as being much less like perfectly-transparent air, and more like a light, but continuous fog. After a certain distance, increasing the intensity of sonar will only give you a marginal increase in range, since a certain portion of your signal will end up scattered back at your hydrophones. No matter how 'noisy' they are, there's really absolutely nothing a surface ship can do to ensure they can detect a deep and silent running submarine that really doesn't want to be detected. It's also much easier to design a submarine to mask its active sonar (reflective) signal. Typically, detecting a submarine is more about having better 'eyes' than it does having brighter 'lights'.

Comment Re:Denial of the root cause (Score 1) 343

To add some data to the current replies to this comment, I suggest you look at the graph here: Between the growth peak in the early 60s of over 2%, we've reduced it to %1. The latest annual letter from the Gates Foundation provides some good background about what's ACTUALLY been improving in the world: http://annualletter.gatesfound...

Comment Re:Isolation, Reflection and Cross-talk (Score 2) 35

The problem is: current CPU designs are frequently limited by wire propagation delays. Optical circuits do have somewhat faster propagation than copper (1c vs 0.75c), but increasing the size of components necessarily increases the distance between them. 1 thz = 1 * 10^-12 light seconds, which is 0.3mm, I believe.

Comment Re:Try reading past the third paragraph (Score 5, Informative) 366

This entire thing really only makes sense if you take a look at it in terms of court costs. He was being prosecuted on 517 counts, which makes him, in my mind, much more than just a casual media pirate (as suggested by the summary). If the evidence was pretty much equally clear on each of the 517 movies, it probably saved a lot of court time and money to pin all of the substantial penalties on a single count and then suspend the rest of them. The downside for the court is that a huge amount of publicity it generated because of the "$650,000 for one movie" angle, whereas this might have caused less outrage if it had been a $1250 fine per movie, even if the total had been the same. If somebody else has another explanation as to why they would choose this bizarrely lopsided penalty, I'd like to hear it. Okay, scratch all of that. I read the related article, and it says that only a single producer seeked damages. What an asshole, destroying someone's life for the sake of a 25 year old shitty horror movie.

Going the speed of light is bad for your age.