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 Huh? (Score 1) 96

"And now, ongoing research [...] looks poised to deliver the first practical device by the end of this decade."

So up until now the multibillion-dollar industry has been founded entirely on impractical devices? Or if they mean the first practical vacuum tube of that particular type it might be useful if the summary gave some kind of brief explanation about what makes it different from/better than other vacuum tubes.

(The TFA probably explains it, but the site is blocked for me.)

Comment Re:anti-repair ain't all that (Score 2) 231

The battery in your phone is no longer holding a useful amount of energy to power the phone all day. You could replace the battery and bring the whole phone back to "like-new" condition, but the manufacturer has glued the case together. This is the malicious intent: The manufacturer *KNEW* that the battery would not last forever, and still welded the case shut. You would not stand for this if it were your car.

I really don't like defending cell phone companies, but I have to play devil's advocate on this one. Gluing all the components together may be the only, or most cost effective, way of giving the phone enough structural integrity to not bend when put in your pocket. These things are /always/ malicious, sometimes it is a really engineering problem that needs to be solved in a way that balances the different things the consumer wants.

Comment Re:FUD at least sort of. (Score 5, Insightful) 198

#1 It's a spokesman for Nest saying that it isn't transmitting when you think you've turned it off.

#2 If the device is already hardwired to allow it to shut down the LED without shutting down the camera then it's only one software update/hack away from transmitting while it appears to be off. (Assuming that such a "feature" hasn't already been included and is just waiting for a signal to activate.)

I don't think i tend towards excessive paranoia, but having a camera attached to the internet with a power switch which doesn't actually power it down seems a bit sketchy to me. Even if Nest/Google the corporation has fully honorable intentions the situation still seems liable to potential abuse.

Comment Re:Yeah, that's the problem (Score -1, Offtopic) 135

We need more medical personnel, or nothing we do to try to fight these resistant illnesses is going to make a difference because we won't have the manpower to implement it.

Sorry, the affordable care act requires more bureaucrats, and less doctors. Doctors are the evil 1% anyway, so we must drain them dry. Can't imagine why fewer people would want to enter and stay in that profession.

Comment stick a fork in it (Score 1) 313

I used to love Firefox, because it was demonstrably better than IE. It was easier to use, less spammy, and frankly, fun to stick it to Microsoft. It was even worth the occasional memory apocalypse.

Haven't used it for several years now, except for testing. I can get dumbed down interfaces and adware anywhere, thanks very much.

Comment Re:how many? (Score 1) 96

"seven people present in the train cab instead of train" What is that suppose to even mean?

I'm not one of those grammar knowing people, but i think that's technically correct english that's made needlessly vague by a couple omissions.

"seven people present in the train cab instead of (in the) train (cars)."

The cab being the driving compartment. The more colloquial term (at least in my neck of the woods) is usually the engine, but perhaps this train didn't have a separate engine car?

You could argue that saying they were in the engine/cab instead of the train is inaccurate, since the cab is in fact a part of the train, but the implication was clearly intended to be "in the off limits to passengers part of the train rather than the part they were supposed to be in."

I'm pretty sure that saying "In the X instead of Y" is an accepted abbreviation of "In the X instead of in the Y", but i don't think it's a very common construction, at least in the US.

Comment Re: Real smart fella (sarcasm) (Score 1) 518

"I'm talking about the poor fool who agrees to be sent on a suicide mission in the hope of a better life. He's the one who needs education."

An education would be nice, but what they really need is a decent economy.

Having a large middle class is a societal stabilizer. So is having an economy in which even most of the lower class can afford at least some luxuries. There are people in America and Europe who are just as religous and/or political as the members of ISIS, but they _generally_ don't engage in terrorist activities. There are a few loons who decide to bomb abortion clinics or government buildings or black churches or what have you, but not entire armies of them.

As much as conservatives like to complain about poor people having iPhones and such, given the choice between dying for your beliefs and spending the afternoon playing flappy bird the vast majority of people will go with flappy bird. And as banal as that makes it sound it still seems like the right choice to me. It's the people who don't have flappy bird, or jobs, or food, (or who have families or fellow countrymen in that position) who decide they have nothing to lose and are willing to go out and kill people in hopes of an afterlife that's better than their current life.

Comment Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism? (Score 1) 728

What motivates educated people to sit in front of a keyboard for 40 minutes composing a thousand-word defense of the disgusting mass murder Islamists committed in Paris today?

Pics or it didn't happen. Do you actually have any examples of "the left" defending these attacks, or are you just finding someone to hate?

You can't be serious.

A bunch of idiots slamming "religion" in this context is defending Islam. Because "religion" didn't do this; Islam did this.

Not to mention saying that "we" somehow caused this. The only way we caused this is by inviting them into our countries.

Exactly nobody is afraid that Presbyterians or Amish or Jews are going to shoot up innocents in their movie theaters and cartoonists offices. Everybody is afraid that Muslims will, and with good reason.

Some are so afraid that they refuse to even say who they are afraid of. They hope that keeping their voices down will keep them safe. And they try to silence anybody else who dares to notice the bleeding obvious.

Comment Good lord ... (Score 2, Insightful) 728

... I know it shouldn't surprise me, but even after this, the top rated comments are still slamming generic "religion" and talking about "backlash" playing a role.

What exactly would it take to wake you up? Would anything do it? Your own head being sawed off? Your city being bombed?

Do not underestimate the value of print statements for debugging.