Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Alright smart guy (Score 1) 504

Less than a year? The original iPad got over two years of support. First sold with iOS 3 but could update to iOS 4 & 5.

Apple's first generation devices tend to get relatively short support but lately they seem to have settled into a 4 year cycle. For example, the iPhone 4, first sold in July 2010, got the most recent OS up until this past Wednesday, 4 years and 2 months.

Comment Re:Serious? (Score 1) 71

Actually Apple is generally much better that Google in this regard. While you can find a few Apple devices that got relatively short support (especially early models), typically most devices now get about 4 years of updates. The iPhone 4, released in 2010, still getting updates though that will stop when Apple releases iOS8 in September. The iPad 2 released in 2011, still getting updates and will get iOS 8.

The Media

What Does It Actually Cost To Publish a Scientific Paper? 166

ananyo writes "Nature has published an investigation into the real costs of publishing research after delving into the secretive, murky world of science publishing. Few publishers (open access or otherwise-including Nature Publishing Group) would reveal their profit margins, but they've pieced together a picture of how much it really costs to publish a paper by talking to analysts and insiders. Quoting from the piece: '"The costs of research publishing can be much lower than people think," agrees Peter Binfield, co-founder of one of the newest open-access journals, PeerJ, and formerly a publisher at PLoS. But publishers of subscription journals insist that such views are misguided — born of a failure to appreciate the value they add to the papers they publish, and to the research community as a whole. They say that their commercial operations are in fact quite efficient, so that if a switch to open-access publishing led scientists to drive down fees by choosing cheaper journals, it would undermine important values such as editorial quality.' There's also a comment piece by three open access advocates setting out what they think needs to happen next to push forward the movement as well as a piece arguing that 'Objections to the Creative Commons attribution license are straw men raised by parties who want open access to be as closed as possible.'"

Video When Your Data Absolutely, Positively has to be Destroyed (Video) 295

Here's a corporate motto for you: "Destroying data since 1959." Timothy ran into a company called Garner Products (which doesn't use that motto as far as we know), at a security conference. While most exhibitors were busily preserving or encrypting data one way or another, Garner was not only destroying data but delighting in it. And yes, they've really been doing this since 1959; they started out degaussing broadcast cartridges so broadcasters could re-use them without worrying about old cue tones creeping into new recordings. Now, you might ask, "Instead of spending $9,000 or more to render hard drives useless, couldn't you just use a $24 sledge hammer? And have the fun of destroying something physical as a free bonus?" Yes, you could. You'd get healthy exercise as well, and if you only wanted to destroy the data on the hard drives, so what? New drives are cheap these days. But some government agencies and financial institutions require degaussing before the physical destruction (and Garner has machines that do physical destruction, too -- which is how they deal with SSDs). Garner Products President Ron Stofan says in the interview that their destruction process is more certain than shooting a hard drive with a .45. But neither he nor Tim demonstrated a shooting vs. degaussing test for us, so we remain skeptical.

Comment Re:Voting is a waste of effort (Score 1) 307

none of those SIGNIFICANTLY affected me. they changed small numbers n my life, nothing more. The ones that did have substantive effect would have done so independent of which government was elected.

Those events have changed life in this country significantly, including your life. You're refusing to acknowledge their significance to prop up your silly theory.

Comment Re:Voting is a waste of effort (Score 1) 307

Was it ten years ago that the conservatives had 2 (TWO!) seats only?! How crazy different did things become? They were so bad that they lost horribly. And the country didn't really change for me at all. Did it change that drastically for you?

BTW that was 19 years ago and things most certainly did change for me. I lost my job because Chretien was elected. I was in the military then and savage cuts to the armed forces by the new Chretien government meant I was out of a job. It wouldn't have happened if the PCs had won that election. So yeah governments do matter and NO I will not join you.

Comment Re:Voting is a waste of effort (Score 2) 307

Some day, IF one of those elected leaders does something that greatly affects me, THEN you'll be correct. But for the last 32 years, you've been wrong.

Have I?

In the last 32 years we've seen the re-patriation of our constitution and the implementation of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's had a huge impact on Canadian law and rules that govern us. That affects you.

In 1988 an entire election was fought over the Free Trade Agreement with the USA. John Turner's Liberals opposed it. So the FTA was not a given. Our economy would be much different today if it wasn't implemented. Yes that would affect you too.

Then there's NAFTA with Chretien, Paul Martin's choices for reducing our deficit, or the implementation of Same Sex Marriage (may not affect you but it did for some) Harper opposed it if the vote had been delayed by a few months it never would have happened.

There's so many things that government does that affects us and voting is the average citizen's say in it.

You've chosen a cynical view to excuse your lack of interest in the things around you.

I'm all for computer dating, but I wouldn't want one to marry my sister.