Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 4, Insightful) 392

And er... what exactly are they supposed to do *before* hand anyway ?
This is the free world - we aren't allowed to lock people up who haven't committed a crime. Sure conspiracy is a crime, but it's not an easy one to prove.

The truth is there is very little that free countries *can* do to prevent terrorism, which is why it's been a part of their history for the last 200 years. There is nothing new or special about current events. There has been some group or another bombing civilians in Europe or the USA every single decade since well before the US revolution.
This is just the latest in a long, long line and at no point in all that history has your risk of dying in such an attack *ever* been higher than about 1 millionth of your risk of dying because you slipped in the shower. Suicide is a much more likely way to die.

Actually in terms of ways to die... this is so far down the list that there is absolutely *no* sanity in being the least bit concerned about it. And everybody losing their minds over it is simply abundant proof that humans are absolutely terrible at risk assessment.

Comment Re:Sadly.. (Score 1) 352

Just a side consideration. If I open a lossless jpeg I had previously exported, and I don't add any layers - what can possibly be lost when saving it ? Anything lossless jpeg couldn't store could not have been there when I opened it in first place.

I could still have understood a "Set a lossy save flag and warn the user if there are changes the format cannot store" approach - but those are relatively rare actually. Like almost every photographer I start with raw format. I then do initial edits in a raw editor (this is basic postprocessing) long before gimp even gets involved. In gimp I do the advanced stuff that I need to get the shot I really want, and then save this in several formats. Usually in XCF - that is the "working copy" I will use if I ever want to make additional edits. But I also typically save in a low quality 800-res lossy jpeg which is for web-use and a high quality 300dpi lossless jpeg pre-sized to page sizes (never trust printer scaling) if I want to do a large print version.
If I am opening the large print version there is absolutely no way I'll be doing any edits that would use masks or layers - because for any such work you use the XCF. Changes to the print version will always be limited to minor tweaks (i.e. it wasn't sized quite the same aspect ratio as paper and I want to make a crop on the edge so I can get a perfect stretchless end-to-end fit on A3). These are not changes that introduce any data that could be lost when saving, indeed I definitely would NOT want those in the XCF - because I made a small crop for this print does not mean I want the image cropped for all time - I may well want the uncropped image for a different use in future).

Comment Re:Sadly.. (Score 2) 352

However if you go and introduce a change which fundamentally opposes 30 years of UI experience for *everybody* you need serious justification.
In basically every program ever written Save saves a file in the format it was opened in, save-as or export lets you change it.
Gnome goes and makes "save" replace the format with their own, and save as ALSO does that but lets you rename... so now you have ot learn to go File/Export even if you opened the file in the proper format in the first place.

Which is an idiotic design because people often have very good reasons for having a particular image in a particular format. If I am making a print-ready photograph it *has* to be in lossless jpeg, because that's the only format the printshops accept, if I open it ot make a tweak, I should NOT need to re-export it to save that tweak.

Comment Re: If you don't like the textbooks, (Score 1) 337

Its not a scientific debate unless the critics argument is science, backed by evidence. There is no scientific debate about this because the theory has a megafuckton of supporting evidence from virtually every hard science practised by mankind and the deniers have not a shred of evidence whatsoever. Hell most of their arguments are not even coherent. When you confuse artic with antarctic all you prove is that you dont even know preschool level geography.

Comment Re:If you don't like the textbooks, (Score 3, Insightful) 337

So ... er... your example of a "controversial" issue is one about which no scientific controversy whatsoever exist ?

The only *controversy* is between science and fossil fuel companies and is about as legitimate as the one that used to exist between science and tobacco sellers and between science and lead sellers. In fact - we have physical proof now that the fossil fuel companies don't even doubt AGW themselves ! They say they do in public, but internally they trust it so absolutely that they based their schedules for arctic drilling on when ice melt would make it most profitable !

Comment Re: Worthy of consideration (Score 2) 305

In the Dutch Roman system they operate in different courts handling entirely different types of cases. An attorney can become a magistrate. An advocate can become a judge. But not vice versa.

Partly its a smart division of labour. Attorney cases take weeks, maybe a month or two. Advocates can be handling the same case for years. So partly tge restriction is to free them up so they can focus only on that heavy workload. If nobody can seek clients nobody has to. Attorneys get the clients first and if its an advocate case refer them to whoever they consider most suitable.

Comment Re:Worthy of consideration (Score 1) 305

That's not actually that far fetched. In most countries it's already illegal for advocates to advertise (I'm not sure if the US legal system differentiates between attorney's and advocates), and, in fact, advocates are not even allowed to take walk-in clients, they can only accept a client after that client is referred to them by an attorney.
In most sensible countries there are also very strict rules about how attorney's are allowed to advertise, generally print adds and the yellow-pages and a website maybe.

Of course, people will always find loopholes, this morning I saw a personally injury lawyer ad for the very first time in my life... turns out some enterprising atorney had decided to advertise on youtube, presumably on the basis of claiming that youtube does not fall under our government's jurisdiction and putting an ad there cannot violate a local advertising law.

I wonder how well that will play if he is actually prosecuted...

Comment Re: Climate has never not been changing. (Score 1) 369

You think there is something magical about mason jars that make them defy the laws of physics ? Or is it the earth that somehow magically follows different rules ?

We use those rules to predict the core temperatures of SUNS. They work for everything, in the same way, that's why we call them "laws" of physics.

They aren't the "suggestions" of physics. They are not the "guesses" of physics".

But trust a denier to somehow believe they are the wishful thinking of physics.

The laws of thermodynamics do not change depending on the size of the system.

A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Winston Churchill