Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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:Mac/Retina (Score 1) 385

by danbob999 (#49286475) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Choosing a Laptop To Support Physics Research?

The Macs with Retina displays are second-to-none. Visually spectacular that nothing comes close to.

It would be an argument for those working in graphism or video editing. But for a physics student? Really? Who cares about the color reproduction of C++ code? Even a cheap TN panel is enough. I agree that resolution matters, however. But there are many laptops with high resolution displays. 1920x1080 is good enough. You can do with less if you work primarily on an external display.

Comment: Re:A second language DOES change your world views (Score 1) 274

by danbob999 (#49282573) Attached to: Speaking a Second Language May Change How You See the World
English is used because it's the language of the UK, which ended up winning most colonial wars, surpassing France and the other European colonial powers in a crucial part of history. But even that is not enough. If the USA ended-up being a poor 3rd world country (like many other UK colonies), English would not have its current clout.
If the language of colonial-era UK had been Yiddish or Mandarin, it would have still been the world language today. It's all about history, and not about ease of learning. Nobody learns English because of it's characteristics as a language. People learn it because it is useful.

Comment: Re:Free Occupied Palestine (Score 1) 163

by danbob999 (#49243287) Attached to: Why Israel Could Be the Next Cybersecurity World Power

Then that should have been a point for peaceful negotiation.

What tells you it wasn't? The UN plan didn't come out of nowhere. The Arabs/Palestinians said they were against the plan. The UN still pushed it forward, instead of trying to find a compromise acceptable to all parties.

Israel withdrew troops and settlements from Gaza, hoping for peaceful neighbors.

It's as if I were your neighbor, robbed your home, gave you back half of your belongings, and then hoping that we would be in good terms. Of course the Palestinians are not going to be happy with only Gaza.

I have yet to hear someone suggest a course that Israel could have taken at any point, that would have had a peaceful solution.

You are wrong. There are tons of possibilities that would lead to peace. The question is to find an acceptable one. But if Israel only wanted peace (at any cost), they could move out of the region and give the whole land to Palestine. While I don't support that plan, I am sure that there are many others less drastic solutions which would lead to peace instantly (such as moving back to the UN plan). Hamas has support for the same reasons that right-wings extremists have support within Israel. Each side is taking the hard line in this conflict. But yes, it is true that any plan for peace means compromises for Israel as they currently have control over much more land than originally planned.

Comment: Re:Free Occupied Palestine (Score 1) 163

by danbob999 (#49238563) Attached to: Why Israel Could Be the Next Cybersecurity World Power

There is no such thing as "Palestine" at this time.

There is a Palestine. Just because it is not recognized by most western countries and Israel doesn't mean it doesn't exists. It doesn't have a single government with control on its whole territory (but neither does Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and many others), but it still exist.

There is only Hamas, the elected Government of the Gaza Strip, and the rival Fatah, which is a de facto Government of the West Bank

Well of course as long as Palestine remains geographically divided by force by Israel, and that free movement between the two parts isn't allowed, it's likely to continue this way. But that wasn't the plan. The UN planned for a contiguous Palestine (although it had two crossings points shared with Israel).

There is a certain amount of cooperation between these groups, but at the same time they still fight and kill each other, too

As if it was the only place in the world with a civil war or tensions between factions.

Comment: Re:Free Occupied Palestine (Score 1) 163

by danbob999 (#49236799) Attached to: Why Israel Could Be the Next Cybersecurity World Power
More Arabs would have supported the plan if they were given more land. It's never black or white. Of course the most extremists would have refused to give up even 1% of the land. But with the proposed UN plan, more land was given to the Jews, even if they represented only a third of the population. With such conditions, even moderate Arabs rejected the plan and no matter if we agree or not with them, it's easy to understand. This conflict will never be solved with Israel continuing its expansion.
The most realistic plan is for Israel to withdraw from West Bank and East Jerusalem, and to give full control, with international recognition, to Palestine. Israel will still have a much larger share of British Palestine than they originally deserved, but at least the Palestinians would have a state. Another important condition is for Israel to allow the return of refugees and for Hamas to stop rocket launches but the best hope about this last condition is either to have an international peace keeping force, or for the Palestinians themselves to have the means to control Hamas.

Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble?