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


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Dangerous, stupid lies. (Score 1) 613

Huh? Here is the 2nd paragraph of the linked site. It certainly does refute the post above. I think your reading comprehension needs some work:

"Radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment on which the text is written to the period between AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. The test was carried out in a laboratory at the University of Oxford. The result places the leaves close to the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who is generally thought to have lived between AD 570 and 632."

Note that "AD 568 to 645" is different than the Slashdot article lead which says "545 AD and 568".

Comment Re:Study is right, but needs more.. (Score 1) 165

A nuclear accident could easily release a lot more radiation than a coal plant. You are confused by the often-quoted fact that when operating normally, a coal plant can release more radiation. An accident though means the plant is not operating normally.

This may mean that the risk from the radiation from either type of plant when operating normally is pretty low. It's fun to point out that more radiation comes from a coal plant, but I'm pretty certain the danger from breathing the other crap that comes out of the coal plant way outweighs the radiation danger.

Comment Re:What a bunch of stupid Republicans (Score 1) 587

I believe the "stupid Republicans" posts are a troll, possibly from somebody who is actually right-wing. They are designed to look like they are posted by as stupid a person as possible. Have seen a couple equally ludicrous ones for the opposite direction, though they tend to use "Liberals" rather than "Democrats". Sometimes they use the exact same wording as the republican attack. Not as common, however, for whatever that means.

Comment Re:Why would you want this? (Score 1) 66

The intention is to have the database update when the close() is done, not on every write().

It is pretty obvious that the desired functionality could be done by fuse, where a get() is done on open and a put() is done on close if write was ever called.

I think the modern day applications that only write a part of a file are nearly non-existent (and in fact partial update where another program can see your unfinished writing, is usually a bug, not a feature). So there is no need for any api other than put().

There is a nice subset that only reads part of a file (and that part almost always includes the start of the file) however. So I can see this as being an argument for being able to access blocks of data from the remote.

Comment Re:Can the enemy actually shoot down the F35? (Score 1) 732

Nonsense. The US spends over $600 billions/year on military. China spends only 216 and Russia 84. The US could still have the most powerful military on earth while cutting the budget by half.

Annual spending and military strength is related, but not directly.

The US could cut the military budget quite a bit, but since we still have all the old equipment we'd still have the most powerful military. For a while.

We pay a high price to stay ahead for the future.

Comment Re:Technical superiority means very little (Score 1) 279

You could just overlap the circles. Have the "kitten pictures" circle if you like. Or make one giant circle instead.

I know you *could* but I think the culture on Google+ is such that that would be aberrant behavior. If I started posting kitten pics to my one giant circle, people would rightly say "Why are you posting kitten pics, I only know you from this game we both play, I don't want to see that crap." Because they have an expectation that I'm going to make use of the circles and segregate my posts. Circles are a key feature of Google+, and if I don't want to use them, I should go to Facebook.

On Facebook that culture doesn't exist. I've heard it's possible to do (friend lists?), but I honestly haven't even checked out the features enough to know. I just know that everybody posts things for everybody to see, and so people expect that. If some work colleague adds me, they KNOW they are signing up to see kitten pics and whatever other random stuff I post.

Also, even if I broke the mold and started sharing everything with everyone on Google+, that's only half the story. Others would have to start doing it to, otherwise the benefit I'm looking for (seeing more stuff about other people) wouldn't ever come about.

Google+ just isn't designed to share as much as Facebook. You limit who you share stuff with, therefore you share less overall. That's a fairly obvious result of what I think was a short-sighted design goal... designing a social network where the expected behavior is to share LESS... that just doesn't make sense.

Comment Re:Peh (Score 1) 388

Actually, pedantically, that's not clear. The KKK for example is a bastion of old, white, hateful assholes. It's not racist to point that out.

They were referring to Slashdot, not the KKK. That is what makes it racist.

In fact if you're going to level an accusation of "racist", it's best to state the acused's race as that generally indicates where and importantly where not their bigotry will be directed.

Honestly I don't know if you're referring to me or the person I called racist.

If you're referring to the other person, they didn't actually call slashdot racist.. so I guess you must be referring to me?

If you're referring to me, how am I to know that person's race? And in any case I don't think it's necessary to identify the accused's race to call something out as racist.

I see what it's directed at, but it still makes very little sense.

What doesn't make sense to you? The general principle is coherent... if a group of people is demonized unfairly, then they have little to lose by engaging in the negative behaviors expected of them. They are already judged. (Barring when there's a third, neutral system at play, like the law... if your group is unfairly demonized as rapists, it obviously hurts you to go out and rape people and then be punished for it, compared to just having people think you *might* want to rape people.)

You may not agree with that, but at least the concept should make sense to you and should sound pretty familiar... I've heard it many times myself.

Comment Re:Thug culture is to blame. (Score 2) 142

This article (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150803_Should_hitchBOT_live_on_.html) describes them as "Two Philadelphia-area pranksters with millions of online followers"

If their pranks involve filming themselves vandalizing things, is it really inaccurate to describe them as part of thug culture? If not in their day-to-day lives, at least their online personas?

The article also includes a quote from one of them: ""Cops tryin to blame Always Teste," Bassmaster tweeted earlier today."

That sounds pretty thuggy.

"Can you program?" "Well, I'm literate, if that's what you mean!"