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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Government vs terrorists (Score 3, Interesting) 395 395

I understand the point you were trying to make, but British Prime Ministers are all in fact Lords.

Historically, the title "prime minister" was not used (other than as an insult) and instead the most senior elected leader in the UK was known as The First Lord of the Treasury. Whilst that remains today, the title prime minister is widely and popularly used instead.

Henry Campbell-Bannerman was the first elected leader (1905) to popularly use the "prime minister" title.

Comment Companies (Score 1) 172 172

Based on my experience doing very similar projects across China, my advice is to approach the many foreign firms doing business in your target country. Ask them for donations of hardware, expertise and / or cash.

We receive around 1,100 used laptops per year from the Fortune 500 companies doing business in China as well as thousands of volunteer hours (and occasionally cash). We send out emails twice a year and arrange collection of donated hardware.

I also agree that "teaching the teachers" should be the first step.


NY Times' Broder Responds To Tesla's Elon Musk 609 609

DocJohn writes "NY Times' John Broder responded to Elon Musk's blog entry. Accused of driving around a parking lot for no reason, for instance, Broder notes he was simply looking for the poorly marked charging station. Worst of all, much of Broder's behavior can be attributed directly to advice he received from Tesla representatives — something Musk fails to mention."

Comment Re:The people will be the ones who suffer (Score 1) 667 667

"Next attack"? Care to point me in the direction of a time since 1709 when Afghanistan has invaded or attacked another nation? Why threaten with annihilation a nation that has never harmed you or your country?

Afghanistan has been invaded by hostile forces repeatedly since 1709. The Afghanis have resisted those invasions as any nation rightly would.


Comment Re:Still in violation (Score 1) 221 221

The agreement you refer was a bilateral agreement that would have resulted in North Korea receiving a light-water reactor in exchange for its undertakings not to proceed with a heavy-water system.

The agreement you refer to was unilaterally broken and not by North Korea.

A large number of installed systems work by fiat. That is, they work by being declared to work. -- Anatol Holt