Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:I'm confused... (Score 1) 311

by dylan_- (#49133895) Attached to: Use Astrology To Save Britain's Health System, Says MP

I understood you were attempting sarcasm. It was embarrassingly poor, so I ignored it.

I know a great deal about healthcare in both the US and Europe. It's telling that you can't identify anything that's actually inaccurate in my post. But you still have to cling to your pitiful belief that you're paying 3 times as much as anyone else for *something* good. Because what kind of idiot would pay vastly more for an inferior service? What kind of idiot indeed...

Comment: Re:I'm confused... (Score 1) 311

by dylan_- (#49129829) Attached to: Use Astrology To Save Britain's Health System, Says MP

Public healthcare in the UK is much better than public healthcare in the USA. Much better outcomes, much wider coverage, much more availability and it's cheaper (yes, cheaper per capita than US public healthcare). It's good enough that most people don't even bother buying private healthcare.

Private healthcare in the UK is much better than private healthcare in the USA. Much better outcomes, much cheaper. And by much cheaper I mean that if I decided to buy private healthcare with all the options and zero excess, it would cost me about $150 a month. That's pretty much the most expensive I can get short of having my own personal staff.

Are you less confused now? Do you now understand why everyone with who's considered the matter thinks your system is crap?

Comment: Re:Finland will save money on napkins (Score 1) 523

by dylan_- (#48499867) Attached to: Finland Dumps Handwriting In Favor of Typing

Ok, so you get given and told there are a maximum 14 hosts.

Maximum 14 hosts means it's 15 on the netmask, so 4 bits, so it's 32 - 4 = 28 network mask.

That means the networks increase by 16 for each. The nearest multiple of 16 to 50 is 48, so the network is

The broadcast is 48 + 16 - 1 = 63 ->

There are some additions and some subtractions and some multiplication, but I don't see where the long division comes in. Do you have a different method of calculating these?

Comment: Re: What's wrong with Windows Server? (Score 1) 613

by dylan_- (#47816743) Attached to: You Got Your Windows In My Linux

I'm afaid it is _exactly_ how X works. The X "server" needs to reside on your local host to see remote X applications displayed locally.

The AC thought you needed the X Server installed on the remote machine and considered it a security risk. That is exactly how it does *not* work. As you have just stated: the X Server runs on the local machine, not the remote server.

I know it's a little confusing referring to the 'server' and the 'X Server' as two separate entities, but I'd hoped my example - specifically stating which machine didn't have the X Server installed - would make it clear enough?

Comment: Re: What's wrong with Windows Server? (Score 1) 613

by dylan_- (#47813467) Attached to: You Got Your Windows In My Linux

It still requires you to run X on your server even if you are using a remote client.

No it doesn't, that's not how X works. Try it for yourself. Create a new VPS on your favourite provider and do:

ssh -X somemachine
sudo apt-get install x11-apps

Note it doesn't install X11 itself. Type 'xcalc' and notice that xcalc starts in a window on your local machine. It's really that easy.

Comment: Re:What will it take to abate your fear? (Score 1) 302

by dylan_- (#47803967) Attached to: Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

That climate change occurs naturally is no reason to think it can't also occur artificially. That's like saying that since fire has existed since the earth began, there's no such thing as arson.

You also fail to understand the "oceans storing heat". We measure how much energy the earth absorbs and how much it radiates. The difference must go somewhere. The amount of atmospheric warming plus the ocean surface warming plus ice melting etc etc don't amount to enough to cover the amount of energy absorbed, so either those things are warming *more* than we measure, or the energy is going somewhere we don't measure. So the deep oceans are the best bet. If you have another theory (that doesn't involve the energy being waved away by the natural cycle fairies) then feel free to share.

Perhaps learn some physics first though, yes? (Why do Americans say "physics" but not "maths"?)

Comment: Re:Oops in title - "sans" ? (Score 2) 147

by dylan_- (#46691903) Attached to: Seagate Releases 6TB Hard Drive Sans Helium

Doesn't "sans" mean without?

Yes, that's because WD's 6TB Ultrastar He6 was hermetically sealed with helium inside, something the company said was critical to reducing friction for additional platters, while also increasing power savings and reliability. Seagate, however, said it doesn't yet need to rely on Helium to achieve the 50% increase in capacity over it's last 4TB drive.

At least, I'm sure I read that somewhere.

Comment: Re:Cherry Picking is Much of the Issue (Score 1) 335

by dylan_- (#46544925) Attached to: Nate Silver's New Site Stirs Climate Controversy
No, it's more like:

If you pick 17 years you get one conclusion.*

If you pick 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 or 34 years you get another conclusion.

(*actually, you don't. I've no idea where this "17 years" thing came from. The temperature data shows a rise over the last 17 years)

Brain off-line, please wait.