Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Cool! (Score 1) 268

Okay, there was some uncertainty over the what phenomena could cause gravity waves, but that still creates mostly the same in issue on the generation side.

Colliding black holes is about as big as you can get. There's nothing known that's more massive, except "collective" objects like galaxies and dust clouds.

Those things are either too diffuse to generate GW's, above noise, or would create them as such a low frequency to be beyond the frequency range of current detectors.

Comment Re: Cool! (Score 1) 268

I understand that, but I've never seen an article about past attempts with statements similar to, "most existing theories on gravity say we shouldn't expect to detect gravity waves with [current gizmo] because it's not sensitive enough, but part of the purpose of [current gizmo] is to verify this expectation."

Comment Re:Not really about Windows (Score 1) 289

Well official Nvidia drivers are available for Linux and are commonly-used, so that's not a strike against Linux.

What *is* a "strike" against Linux is that you can't get official drivers from various small peripherals. Instead, you have to use community-written drivers for things like USB-to-serial converters, rather than having to load a 100MB "driver package" like you do on Windows which is full of drivers, various crapware applications you don't want, spyware, etc.

Comment Re:In Soviet Ru- aww, screw it. (Score 1) 289

The GPL has no such demand or requirement, that's a myth.

The GPL requires that you make the source code available to anyone you distribute binaries to. If you're making a Linux distro for use in your government, that means you need to make the source code available to your government, which is you. As long as you don't give it to anyone else, there's no problem. There's no reason a government would hand out copies of a government-use-only OS to anyone outside that government (or they could make a special stripped-down version for them if they wanted). Besides, not everything in a Linux distro is GPL.

Comment Re:OSX (Score 1) 289

AFAIC, the only reason every government isn't using their own internal Linux distro is either corruption or incompetence. Windows is well-known to be loaded with spyware now; you'd have to be a complete loon to think that Windows isn't spying on you, considering it's publicly acknowledged that they do. So why would you run your government systems, with critical or classified information, on such an OS, instead of one which you have full control over? That's aside from the issue of how much money you'd save by not sending it to a foreign country, and instead employing your own people to maintain your governmentOS.

Comment Re:I'd like to order Vanilla Sky for everyone else (Score 2) 82

"Instead of reprogramming your own memories to suit your perceived ideal, erase it ineffectively?"

I didn't get that from the article at all. I don't believe it's trying to change perceived reality but provide some 'privacy'. This is not a 'bad' thing.

Example: My daughter (lets younger than a teenager) was kidnapped a few years ago -- and her name and/or picture were all over the radio/tv/internet before she was recovered. It's taken a few years for the search results of her name to dwindle (with me running around to various news sites asking them to please remove my daughters name and blur her photo). Honestly, most news sites were very helpful with this -- it just took time and a hell of a lot of 'foot work' finding the right people to talk to. Blogs on the other hand were a mixed bag. Some were "no problem" while others were outright hostile (I used the same polite request to all sources -- basically copy-paste).

But now, search for her name and nothing on any search engine comes up page 1 or 2.

THAT info screams to me to be removed. Not the NEWS but instead of a victims real name use something else. Instead of photos, blur them.

What kids dont search their names on the internet -- or their friends names? How is it helpful to have kids re-traumatized with nosy questions (at best) and mean/nasty comments at worst? I believe we have the right to keep some things private -- and we can argue this if you like but I believe very few people would argue about victims privacy and fewer still about children's privacy.

Comment Re:And? (Score 1) 289

What about the lack of productivity due to Windows? I remember wasting at least a whole day at a job a couple years ago trying to get a large network printer (Ricoh I think) to work with Windows, because of various driver and security problems. The corporate IT department had to come out several times to try to get it working, and finally ended up doing some weird backwards method. In Linux, getting a network printer to work is easy.

Comment Re:The obvious direction... (Score 1) 289

nothing but Vi (no Vi, not Vim)

Linux has never had vi included in any distro to my knowledge. It's always been vim, and/or some other vi clone like elvis. vi has only ever been included with actual UNIXes like Solaris. The copyright to vi was owned by AT&T so it was illegal to include it with Linux, or even with *BSD. This did change in 2002 according to Wikipedia and some guy resurrected it as "Traditional vi", and added a lot of features to it, but no one actually uses that.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 489

And Rafael Cruz is not the one on the ticket - his son is.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Has Ted ever publicly disavowed his father's theology? If not, then we can safely assumes he agrees with it.

Comment Re:Cool! (Score 1) 268

They have been trying to detect GW's for roughly half a century, making instruments gradually ever sensitive when nothing found. Was their magnitude so uncertain that they had no idea how sensitive the detector had to be to detect them?

If it's nearly a guaranteed result, as you implied, then why the huge uncertainty over the sensitivity needed? Or did the early trials merely hope the models were wrong when trying to detect results beyond what the tech of the day could handle relative to the (faint) magnitude the models suggested?

For example, why build a detector that is only sensitive to waves of 100 units or larger if the models say the actual waves should only be 2 units of size? You wouldn't build the 100 unit-size detector unless you had a decent reason to believe the models could be wrong. But I've never seen that assumption stated in the write-ups over the years they've been building all these detectors.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 489

What? That's completely ridiculous. Cruz is a Dominionist; he wants to establish a theocracy of sorts.

Of the current candidates, Bernie's the closest thing to social libertarianism you're going to get.

Slashdot Top Deals

A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.

Working...