Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:People buy stuff without understanding is... (Score 2) 321

To quote my own Mother, "I don't want to learn all that technical stuff, I just want to use my computer".

Yea, I have to say, I have to clean her machine off of crap every year. Every time I go over there, Internet Explorer has 5 or 6 toolbars installed because she clicks on everything.

And no, she won't let me restrict and lock down the machine, I've tried that.

Then she shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any computer that's connected to the Internet.


An Internet connected computer in the wrong hands can be a very dangerous threat to the rest of us who share the Information Super-Highway with her. Her incompetence and irresponsibility can seriously hurt a lot of people very quickly.

She is behaving like a person who wants to drive a car but is not interested in obtaining a license that proves she knows how to operate said motor vehicle is a safe manner. She just wants to get on the road. To hell with leaning how to drive!

That's irresponsible.

If she cannot take the time to learn how to safely operate a computer connected to the Internet or cannot demonstrate that she knows how to do so, then she should NOT be alowed anywhere near one.

At least not without close supervision.

Comment Re:Idiot (Score 1) 345

IMO only a very foolish company or gov't entity would ever allow a computer running an antiquated insecure operating system controlling a very expensive and critical piece of company equipment to be connected to the internet or rely on a vendor that doesn't support an operating system any newer than one that's already 12 years old which they knew for years ahead of time was no longer going to be supported.

But then maybe that's just me.

Comment Re:Polygraphs don't work... (Score 1) 374

Similar results occurred in a similar "experiment" on lie detector operators (polygraph operators) performed years ago by 60 Minutes:

60 Minutes - Truth and Consequences

Even though no camera was actually stolen and each "suspect" knew this (were privy to the experiment), each examiner fingered whichever "suspect" that they were told beforehand might have stolen it.

Comment Re:It has a deep tradition it seems (Score 1) 217

Similar results occurred in a similar "experiment" on lie detector operators (polygraph operators) performed years ago by 60 Minutes:

Even though no camera was actually stolen and each "suspect" knew this (were privy to the experiment), each examiner fingered whichever "suspect" that they were told beforehand might have stolen it.

Comment Re:Lack of tolerance to other religions (Score 1) 412

You are under the impression that there is a "universal right" and "universal wrong" (and you claim to know the right in this case)

In a democracy the majority should get their way - by definition.

Freedom of speech allows everyone the right to voice their opionion in the form of criticism towards another or their beliefs.

A right is something that is enjoyed equally by the minority as it is by the majority. Otherwise it is not a right but a wrong.

Comment Re:See. Patents/Copyright spur innovation. (Score 2) 491

And don't forget, they've got twice as much money for advertising those drugs as they have for researching those drugs and running those clinical trials.

With good reason I would suspect.

Developing a new drug is a very risky and very expensive thing. R&D costs money and lots of it, while generating exactly zero dollars in income.

The sales of said drugs (i.e. the fruit of R&D's labor) however, is what generates income, and is what ultimately covers the incredible cost involved in developing it in the first place (as well as the cost of failed research efforts on drugs which "never panned out" and thus never made it to market).

If the percentages spent on promotion verses R&D were reversed (e.g. only 13.4% on marketing verses 24.4% for research and development), they might not be able to generate enough income to cover the cost of all the dollars they were sinking into developing their new wonder drug, and then where would we be? After all, "He who has a thing to sell and goes to whisper in a well, is not as apt to get the dollars as he who climbs a tree and hollers!"

Now I'm no fan of seeing so many advertisements for drugs in so many magazines, etc (since such advertisements are mostly lots of hype sprinkled with heavy doses of fine printed medical gobbledy-gook which I can neither read what with my poor eyesight nor understand what with my non-existent medical training), but bashing drug companies for spending more on advertising than your average non-drug company is hardly a convincing argument that they are therefore all greedy sons of bitches. (There are much easier ways to make money than developing new life-saving drugs after all, so greed (i.e. wont for profit) can't be the sole motivating factor).

Bottom line: given a choice between fewer life-saving drugs but a couple extra dollars in my pocket verses a realible supply of some life-saving drug that I might some day need in order to survive (at the marginal cost of more dollars going into their pockets instead of mine), I vote for the latter thank-you-very-much.

NOW THEN, getting back on topic...

If they have indeed had more than plenty enough time to recoup the costs incurred in developing said drug and are now simply wishing to prolong their ride on the profit train their investment generated because they inadequately failed to plan ahead for said train eventually reaching the end of the line which they knew was coming, then fuck 'em. They should have planned ahead better.

Comment Simple HTML confounds NASA rocket scientists (Score 1) 100

NASA may understand things related to aeronautics and space, but, sadly, they sure as heck don't understand HTML very well:

    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D298_50.jpg" target="_blank" class="captionText")
    (img src="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D298_50.jpg" width="120" height="90" ...
    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D298_50.jpg")Full Size Image(/font)(/a) ...


    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D853_50.jpg" target="_blank" class="captionText")
    (img src="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D853_50.jpg" width="120" height="90" ...
    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D853_50.jpg")Full Size Image(/font)(/a) ...


    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D867_50.jpg" target="_blank" class="captionText")
    (img src="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D867_50.jpg" width="120" height="90" ...
    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D867_50.jpg")Full Size Image(/font)(/a) ...

Ummm... Houston? We have a problem here!

The "width" and "height" attributes of the HTML "img" tag *DOES NOT CHANGE THE SIZE OF THE IMAGE FILE*. It only changes the how that (image) FILE is /rendered/ on the screen.

The entire 2.31 MB (9.4 x 6.3 inches (23.8 x 15.9 cm) 2250 x 1500 Pixel), 1.57 MB (5.8 x 8.1 inches (14.8 x 20.6 cm) 1400 x 1942 Pixel), and 2.01 MB (8.8 x 5.8 inches (22.3 x 14.8 cm) 2104 x 1400 Pixel) files will /still/ be downloaded whenever the page is displayed.

They'll just get squeezed into a tiny 120 x 90 pixel area on the page, which sort of renders moot the whole point of providing thumbnails, doesn't it?

What /should/ be, at most, a several kilobyte web page is, thanks to the rocket scientist that wrote your page's HTML code, is now a 5.9+ MEGABYTE web page, that even with high speed DSL /does/ take a while to load.

I've seen this mistake made far too many times by amateur web authors. You'd think the folks at NASA would be smart enough to get it right.

I mean this isn't exactly rocket science we're talking about here!

But then maybe that's the problem? They only understand rocket science, so anything that /isn't/ rocket science completely baffles them??

Makes you wonder sometimes....

Comment This happened to me too (Score 1) 511

Well, almost.

I didn't so much have my ATM Debit Card card stolen as I did my identity.

What they (the criminals) actually did was electronically "skim" my card, thereby obtaining not only all of my bank account information (account number, etc -- all the stuff recorded on the magnetic strip of the card) but also my pin number. (Their keypad where you enter you pin number into was connected to another box that saved the two pieces of information together so they has everything they needed to clone and use the card).

We noticed it on the next bank statement. There were transactions for places in California and we live in Seattle, WA and we don't travel.

The next day I went to the bank to deposit a check and asked the teller what I should do. She immediately asked me whether I happened to make any purchases recently at the store across the street. Surprised that she would know I answered yes. She then told me the cops has just arrested the owner for fraud/identity theft. Apparently there were many dozens of victims, all in this area and many of them also customers of the same bank as mine (Bank of America).

Long story short, the bank refunded the entire amount (over $900) while the investigation was underway since it was likely the investigation would complete in my favor (and since they obviously had the resources to recover their losses better than I did to cover mine).

I'm surprised your bank isn't handling the situation similarly, unless your card was indeed stolen and not simply used as part of a much larger across-state-lines wide-spread identity theft ring (which the feds (FBI) took over investigating/prosecuting).

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten