Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Both good for the individual & bad for soci (Score 3, Interesting) 135

by dan14807 (#40418971) Attached to: Erasing Details Of Bad Memories

PTSD is reassuring for me in a way - if humans were truly naturally murderous beasts, as some would like to insist, PTSD would be very rare or non-existant.

Read On Killing. Only psychopaths can kill without emotional consequences. People are naturally opposed to killing when it comes to dealing with members of the same species. Men can hunt and kill a deer. That's instinct. When confronting other humans, the instinct is to posture or submit. Same applies to most other mammals.


+ - Dell lays off 200 at small-town call center

Submitted by
mr_josh writes "Dell closed its Roseburg, OR call center this morning, giving its employees less than 24 hours notice. FTFA:

"They've already had all of our checks cut," said another employee, Travis Dominguez. "They knew the whole thing was coming and everything."

Roseburg is a small (about 25,000 people) timber town in southern Oregon, and it was a pretty big deal when this call center opened in 2002. They were given huge property tax incentives at the time of their opening, and those incentives are about to run out. Also, some employees from the call center put together a lawsuit several months ago, "claiming Dell violated federal and state wage and hour laws."

Coincidence? 0802014"

+ - Why biofuels won't help climate change

Submitted by mark99
mark99 (459508) writes "We all know that Biofuels have lots of problems, yet they seem to be the best bet for converting our economy to renewable enery without massive technical changes to our infrastructure. This article seems to disaggree, but it also seems full of logical fallicies, like implying that if there is no "net new crops", then there will be no carbon gain.

However conversion of biomass that would not have been eaten, but will be disposed of and turned into CO2 anyway reducing the amount of oil we dig out of the ground and vaporize would surely be a huge gain would it not? Or does this senario rely on tech that we do not have?

And it seems to imply that you have to put non-renewable energy in to get biomass generated energy out, that can't be right, since then it would never be profitable, but we know that it is once oil hits a certin cost. Is this worth discussing again, or have we beat this horse to death already?"

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android