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:Ken Burns documentary a couple of weeks back (Score 1) 21

by kwiecmmm (#49488173) Attached to: New Chemical Tools Lead To Targeted Cancer Drugs

60 minutes had a story as well about a modified version of the polio virus being used to trigger an immune system response to the cancer cells. It seems (maybe I am just overly optimistic) that more progress is beginning to be made against cancer, since the introduction of chemo and radiation therapies.

Comment: Re:Great article. (Score 3, Insightful) 215

by kwiecmmm (#49399047) Attached to: The Dystopian Lake Filled By the World's Tech Sludge

Same goes for windmills, etc. Are they really better for the environment than, say, nuclear power?

Uranium has to be mined (most likely using similar circumstances) as well. Most everything that we use and dispose of has an environmental impact.

The real point of this is the fact that China doesn't have better environmental protection laws. The US had issues like this up until the states and the EPA began to regulate environmental impacts. The Cuyahoga River fire was a good example of why we began to clean up our act in the US.

But the reason that I quoted that line is because windmills, solar, nuclear and geothermal are good sources of electricity that our going to lower CO2 emissions and hopefully slow the human environmental impact on the world. All of these can cause a negative environmental impact, if done in an unregulated environment, but they can all hopefully improve the environment as well.

Comment: Re:Gates? (Score 1) 140

by kwiecmmm (#49284459) Attached to: Gates: Large Epidemics Need a More Agile Response

Why do people give credence to anything this guy says, beyond Microsoft, or more generally, microcomputers, I'll never know.

Maybe because of the vast amount of charity work he has done in the past two decades. His work (not specifically himself but experts that work for him) on malaria, HIV, vaccines worldwide, and other huge issues here and in the third world.

Even if you hate Microsoft, why would you completely ignore his charity work?

Comment: Re:LiDAR solves for vegetation (Score 1) 31

I can't speak to jungles, but in local wooded areas in the US there are enough holes in the canopy to get some lidar data through the foliage. One certainly gets more with leaf off, but leaf on isn't a complete deal breaker.

Yes, but little wholes in the canopy are hardly enough to map the area and most likely not anywhere near enough to find more than a couple mines in areas that probably have at least hundreds of mines.

Comment: Re:Have we handed the government control over it? (Score 1) 347

by kwiecmmm (#49243821) Attached to: FCC Posts Its 400-Page Net Neutrality Order

This may not work out in our favor over the long term. How soon before they start overtly regulating content?

This Net Neutrality "gift" may turn out to be a trojan horse. There must have be some other way to ensure the net stays neutral without classifying it as a utility subject to government meddling.

One way that this can be reversed and not negatively affect consumers is if there is a ton more competition in internet access. Most places that I have lived have one or if I was lucky two internet carriers. I don't want satellite and I want a better connection than a DSL connection so my only option is to go with a cable company that provides internet services.

So until there is real competition around the country this needs to be classified as a utility.

Comment: Re:Should read (Score 1) 631

by kwiecmmm (#49140199) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

"Democrats force through socialist regulations." Nothing Obama does in the next year will make durable law, not amnesty, unnatural marriage, communication regulation, healthcare subsidies... A conservative President and congress will set things right in 2010

I sure can't wait for 2010 for this to happen. I expect we will have flying cars by then as well.

Comment: Re:"Broadband" is a stupid name (Score 1) 430

by kwiecmmm (#48933165) Attached to: FCC Officially Approves Change In the Definition of Broadband

Broadband is a description of the technology, not of bandwidth. The FCC is a technical organization, so why can't they use the correct name?

Because the people who vote on this change are not technical people. And because most Americans would not understand a good technical name.

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling