Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Probably the #1 cause of diabetes (Score 1) 570

Then they can have a soda once in a while.. assuming it's cane sugar-sweetened, not HFCS, not aspartame, not sucralose. In my opinion, stevia is OK, but as with most things YMMV.

Or, since aspartame and sucralose are both GRAS (the former after decades of intense scrutiny), have a soda as often as you'd like provided it's a sugar-free one.

Comment Re:Saves having to climb a ladder (Score 1) 60

AA 191 isn't the best example to cite here.

While it's true that bad maintenance procedures led to the failure, the crash would have been avoidable if the pilot or FO had reacted correctly. Instead of increasing the throttle position of the remaining engines and using it to get the plane to where it could land safely, however, he reduced throttle and stalled out.

Maintenance caused the failure, but it was unquestionably pilot error that caused the crash.

Comment Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas (Score 1) 819

My only conclusion is that the frequent bailouts they've received has allowed them to institutionalize failures in their business models. We need to stop "Saving" industries/businesses.

Interesting, then, that you cite the Asian and Middle Eastern airlines as examples of the "right" way, as many of them are heavily subsidized.

Comment Re:Zoe Quinn, wait what? (Score 1) 1134

What they haven't done is anything justifying this gigantic shitpile of hate and threats. Which exists because of misogyny. And you have to know you're lying if you claim otherwise.

You're right. They don't deserve threats. Few, if any, people do.

But they *have* done things that deserve media attention. Zoe in particular seems to have behaved rather reprehensibly in a couple different ways. (I have no idea about whether she sleeps around, and frankly I couldn't care less. I'm referring to the stores of her DMCA [ab]use, trying to muscle out competing game jams, etc.)

Professional gaming journalism sucks for many reasons (anyone remember Gamespot axing a reviewer because he didn't review a sponsoring game well enough?), and this is one of them.

We shouldn't give a free pass to crap journalistic standards and assholes who can't play nice in the community just because some other set of assholes threatened the first set.

Comment Re:Oh, Stallman. You so crazy. (Score 1) 1098

As a counterpoint, Apple likes LLVM. They've modified it, and they're selling their proprietary fork as XCode. They've found great value in the freedom afforded them by the BSD license. The users of XCode, however, aren't seeing much benefit from the BSD license, because it never got to them. Apple ate it along the way.

As a correction to the counterpoint: Apple has paid for full time development of Clang + LLVM, as they use it. Despite being under no legal obligation to share the source back to the community they have done so; in essence donating their time and money to a BSD project. Their users benefit (by having a better compiler), and other Free software users benefit (by having a better compiler, plus the ability to build their own IDE around the same underying compiler tech. as Xcode).

There are plenty of examples of BSD software getting "eaten" by a proprietary stack, but much of Apple's usage is actually one of the worse examples you could provide, as they often do contribute quite a lot back.

Comment Re:Sorry man, but not everyone agrees with you (Score 1) 1098

The BSD people would be better if it weren't for the existance of copyright. That changes everything, Stallman understands that, I don't think the BSD people do.

Some of us do. We just don't all have the same zealous pursuit of Free software as others.

For me at least, I write stuff under the BSD license because it means that more developers can use my projects to build theirs. Simple as that. With the GPL or LGPL, the number of potential users shrinks.

In short, I want to write software for other developers regardless of whether they're committed to the cause of Free software. BSD lets me do that, GPL doesn't. Simple enough.

Comment Re:Precisely (Score 1) 1098

That's why it's GPLed, so the work of free software developer does not help those who want to shrink our freedom.

And that right there is the difference between GPL and BSD developers.

I develop stuff under the BSD license because I want to help people regardless of whether or not I view their projects as being congruent with my views on software distribution.

Comment Re:But... why? (Score 4, Informative) 430

Unless things have changed I never paid Qt any attention because it is dually licensed and therefore not truly free software and its ownership keeps changing between commercial companies.
Last I checked Qt is "free" for open source projects but requires an expensive commercial license for anything else.

You last checked about a decade ago, then.

Here's how it works now (and has worked for a while now): Qt is Free. Not "free", but Free. It's under the LGPL. And the GPL.

"But it's owned by a commercial company, and they can just close off the source."

Nope. Still stays open. Back a few years ago, the KDE group got a special concession from Nokia. They set up the KDE Free Qt Foundation; if the commercial owners of Qt (Digia) stop releasing Qt under the LGPL and GPL3, KDE has the right to make the whole thing BSD. Irrevocably. And the agreement stays, even if Digia is sold, bought, etc. Read the link if you'd like to know more.

Basically, Qt is Free. If the owners ever stop releasing it for Free, KDE gets to release it under an even more Free license.

Qt has been Free for a while. Qt is still Free. It will remain Free

Comment Re:Government (Score 1) 400

By any reasonable standard the roughly $400m spent on implementing this was incredibly excessive. If a private company had wanted to build this system for profit, it would have been done for under $100m.

And if it cost that much, it would be!

If, on the other hand, the numbers that your referencing came from... say... a couple journalists incorrect understanding of the total bid cost (based on both delivery and subsequent modifications and years of projected upkeep) and not instead from the actual cost to get what we currently have... ... well then in that case, it might not be such a sound strategy of attack.

The big mistake of the ACA was that it did not allow for the creation of privately run and owned exchanges.

The ACA didn't need to do anything -- that's the status quo. There's been literally nothing preventing something like that from being set up since the invention of the web.

But hey, since we know that the free market always comes up with the best solution, clearly the lack of such exchanges means that people didn't want something like this, right?

Comment Re:Yikes (Score 4, Interesting) 419

I never thought that desire for fiscal responsibility, constitutional rule, and limited concentration of power would be masked over with such a contrived caricature.

They're not.

The "Tea Party", on the other hand, is -- as well they should be.

It started as a populist movement with some people advocating the things that you stated. And that was a noble goal. But like many "grassroots" movements, it was co-opted by powerful (read: rich) influences, and has been steered instead towards their current position: a rabid, economically-ignorant (yet politically-involved) group for which the merits of an idea are trumped by whether or not their "team" endorsed it (Democrat: bad, "Republican": good.)

I have no love for either mainstream US party, and initially I thought that the Tea Party idea might end up developing into a viable third party platform with values closer to those of classic liberal philosophy. (Note: "liberal" here is used in its original form, not as a synonym for Democrat). Sadly, they turned out nothing like that -- and the folks who currently wear the label are worthy of the scorn they get.

Mirrors should reflect a little before throwing back images. -- Jean Cocteau