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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:WTF is with the US utility tie-in? (Score 0) 143

The problem here is that there's a low-grade civil war brewing in Crimea after Russia's invasion.

There are no civil wars in Crimea right now, this disruption happened in Ukraine, outside of Crimea. Moreover this will harm more the faltering economy of Ukraine, that is paid for its supply of energy, than Crimea.

Comment Re:This is not news (Score 1) 165

An test aiming to measure support for modern "html5" should not award bonus points for non-standard (speech apis)

Webaudio is a W3C standard.

deprecated (keygen)

It is not deprecated in HTML5, it will be in HTML5.1, and deprecated does not mean removed.

outright rejected features (websql).

In fact it does not award points for it: it is listed, but its inclusion does not award any points. Firefox does not nahve it and it still gets 35/35 points in that test.

Comment Re:HTML5Test is not a test of standardscompliance. (Score 1) 165

The fact that keygen is deprecated in a draft doesn't mean that it shouldn't be supported. As of now, it must be supported, while, probably, its use will be discouraged in newly written code. But that again doesn't mean that it shouldn't be supported now or tomorrow: HTML5.1 will last at least a few years from now.

Comment Re:What's for cows (Score 1) 165

OK, but Edge misses many features that are standardized in both HTML5 and the draft of HTML5.1, like the template element or the output, keygen and meter elements. It misses OGG/Vorbis/Opus support because Microsoft opposed to their inclusion in the standard. It includes non standard features like Media Source Extensions. Basically Edge has the worst of both worlds: lacking support for standards and support for non-standard features.

Comment Re:Survey bias (Score 1) 143

That is not even close to be true. The number of autopsies in the western world dwindled since the '70s. Here an article about autopsies in the Canton Ticino (Switzerland, not a poor country by any means): 304 autopsies in 1977, 144 in 2007. The same trend is present in all the other University and Cantonal hospitals of Switzerland. According to this site in the United States before 1970, autopsies were performed in 40% to 60% of all cases involving hospital deaths, while in recent years, that number has decreased to approximately 5%.

So it is very likely that cancer cases can go unnoticed and that official statistics are based on an undersampled number of cases. This is quite evident in the case of Chernobyl, where the survival rate is exceptionally high, even though Belarusian and Ukrainian health systems are in a dire state since the '90s.

Comment Re:Survey bias (Score 1) 143

Still all of that is besides the point. When autopsies are performed, any cancers are noted even when the patient dies of unrelated conditions. For example almost ALL men over age 80 and ALL men above 90 have prostate cancer, although most of them die from something else. So yes you're right in that cancer can go undetected. But you are wrong in thinking we don't know exactly what the "normal" amount of cancer is in a population.

Are you suggesting that every dead person gets a full autopsy? Because that is not even close to be true.

About cancer and tumors: you're right, but I don't think that who wrote this article knows the difference.

Comment Re: Apartheid (Score 2) 441

Stalin was a communist and an atheist, yet he made a deal with the Russian Orthodox Church and suspended all publications of the league of militant atheists in 1941. It just suited his aims. The point is these guys never claimed to be christian, it is just someone like you that tries to extrapolate some phrase to support his agenda and ease his insecurities. Claiming that Mussolini or Fascism were pro-religion or pro-christianity is just nonsense.

Comment Re:Apartheid (Score 2) 441

Keep repeating those shallow reasonings, you may eventually to believe them. Mussolini was an anticlerical atheist. Of course he was also a politician and so he had to make a deal with the powerful Catholic Church, like he had to make a deal with the monarchic exponents but he was not a Catholic nor a royalist: he was just pragmatic. Like Hitler or Stalin or Napoleon or Saddam: they all used religion, as a political mean, because religion is/was powerful in their state, but they weren't religious in a traditional sense.

Comment Re:Apartheid (Score 1) 441

I don't think that a youtube video with out-of-contest, mistranslated words is going to support your point (he's talking about communists by the way). Mussolini, the theorist of fascism, was an atheist. After all, it's really difficult to imagine a leader of a totalitarian regime supportive of some kind of religion or religious power. It is true that totalitarian states (from Napoleon onward) tried to embrace, extend and extinguish religion and so at some point they had to take care of religious people and religious power, however that is just a struggle with an alien power on the road to the true totalitarian state. Even Stalin had to make a deal with religious authorities during the second world war: totalitarian leaders are politician and you'd make a huge mistake judging a politician by his words instead of his actions.

The shortest distance between two points is under construction. -- Noelie Alito