Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Firefox Adopts a 6-8 Week Variable Release Schedule ( 247

AmiMoJo writes: Four years ago Mozilla moved to a fixed-schedule release model, otherwise known as the Train Model, in which we released Firefox every six weeks to get features and updates to users faster. Now Mozilla is moving to a variable 6-8 week cycle, with the same number of releases per year but some flexibility to 'respond to emerging user and market needs' and allow time for holidays. The new release schedule looks like this:
  • 2016-01-26 – Firefox 44
  • 2016-03-08 – Firefox 45, ESR 45 (6 weeks cycle)
  • 2016-04-19 – Firefox 46 (6 weeks cycle)
  • 2016-06-07 – Firefox 47 (7 weeks cycle)
  • 2016-08-02 – Firefox 48 (8 weeks cycle)
  • 2016-09-13 – Firefox 49 (6 weeks cycle)
  • 2016-11-08 – Firefox 50 (8 weeks cycle)
  • 2016-12-13 – Firefox 50.0.1 (5 week cycle, release for critical fixes as needed)
  • 2017-01-24 – Firefox 51 (6 weeks from prior release)


Free State Project Reaches Goal of 20,000 Signups ( 459

Okian Warrior writes: As a followup to our recent story, at 11AM Tuesday, Free State Project president Carla Gericke announced the FSP had reached its goal of recruiting 20,000 participants. The 20,000 mark is significant, because it 'triggers the move' – the mass migration of the Free State Project participants who have all agreed to move to New Hampshire within the next five years. So far, almost 2,000 have already relocated to the state.

Comment Re: Already here - it feels unfair to some (Score 1) 412

The OP was incoherent for multiple reasons: Grossly confusing the number of people who would have to be sacrificed in order to double everyone else's wealth, claiming that sacrificing them would actually double everyone's wealth, thinking that forcibly redistributing that would yield anywhere near the paper value of the underlying assets, thinking it would do much to help the people it was given to, and so on. If you say that "1%" in the context of global wealth distribution meant something very different to the OP than "$77,000 of net worth", you may be right, but that is yet another point where OP is wrong in an easy-to-discover way.

Your silly obsession over what qualifies as a "welfare mom" misses the point. Most people would not accept confiscating a doctor's house and medical practice to pay more money to people who live off welfare, or confiscating the home and retirement assets from a couple of 60-year-old middle-class people to build a new mud hut for a subsistence farmer in Elbonia (which is about how far the money would go after all the bureaucrats along the way take their cuts), but that is what the OP was proposing to "double the world's wealth". Fussing about "welfare moms" and whose sob story justifies sucking at the public teat is a refusal to address the legitimate objections to that kind of redistribution.

Comment Re: Already here - it feels unfair to some (Score 1) 412

The global 1% for wealth is a net worth of about $77,000. At least in the US, doctors easily cross that threshold, as do most near-retirees. It's just that near-retirees usually have that in illiquid assets like their homes or in well-regarded assets like retirement funds (even if those retirement funds are usually not at a level that retirement advisors say is wise).

Welfare moms make excuses to turn why they don't want to work into why they can't work. Most people find a way. One woman I went to college with is now a single mom, raising an autistic kid, but she still works rather than depend on welfare.

Comment Re: Yeah, sure (Score 1) 412

No, my argument against your unnamed "study" (undoubtedly made by someone who got the result they were looking for and who published their study in a journal refereed by their fellow travelers) is that they had thumbs on the scale the whole way. Social sciences are even more dismal, and less sound, than economics. It's trivial to lie with statistics in that kind of analysis, and the gatekeepers are almost all way out on one side of the policy spectrum, so they object to flaws in papers from their perceived domestic enemies but less similar flaws pass in papers from their "friends". Should I cite all the recent studies showing how academic closure and credentialism has led to near monoculture in many fields?

Comment Re: Next up: Social media "likes"? (Score 2) 195

That still doesn't make sense, unless you mean to say that my friends don't have permission to send me emails, which is clearly an untenable proposition. In this situation, Amazon is suggesting and facilitating the sending of an email by my friend, which is almost exactly the same as something showing up on my social event stream -- Facebook suggests and facilitates the "like" being sent, Amazon suggests and facilitates the "email" being sent.


Wikipedia Editors Revolt, Vote "No Confidence" In Newest Board Member ( 186

An anonymous reader writes with news about an editor revolt at Wikimedia to remove Arnnon Geshuri from the foundation's board. Ars reports: "Nearly 200 Wikipedia editors have taken the unprecedented step of calling for a member of the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors to be tossed out. The Wikimedia Foundation, which governs both the massive Wikipedia online encyclopedia and related projects, appointed Arnnon Geshuri to its board earlier this month. His appointment wasn't well received by the Wikipedia community of volunteer editors, however. And last week, an editor called for a 'vote of no confidence on Arnnon Geshuri.' The voting, which has no legally binding effect on the Wikimedia Foundation, is now underway. As of press time, 187 editors had voted in favor of this proposition: 'In the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, Arnnon Geshuri must be removed from his appointment as a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board.' Just 13 editors have voted against, including Wikimedia board member Guy Kawasaki.

Comment Re: Regulation; is there no harm it cannot bring? (Score 3, Informative) 66

Why do you say they are technically savvy? Their marketing appears to be savvy, but all the impartial stories I've seen (including from Reason, which is usually against regulators and incumbents who benefit from regulations) give the impression of dodgy technology at Theranos.

Slashdot Top Deals

Last yeer I kudn't spel Engineer. Now I are won.