Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission + - ReactOS 0.3.16, the Windows clone has got a new Explorer (kingofgng.com)

KingofGnG writes: On the long, long road that leads to its final target, ReactOS continues to grow and evolve thanks to the hard work made by developers contributing to the project. The latest, important changes help the system to actually advance toward the aforementioned final target, ie to reach full compatibility with software and drivers made for Windows operating systems based on the NT architecture.

Submission + - Distributed Storage for Families?

StonyCreekBare writes: What options are available for distributed storage for families?
My two brothers, my daughter and her husband, and his mother all have homes in various parts of the country. We use various cloud storage providers to keep our shared data. This has numerous limitations and we are starting to think maybe we can do it better ourselves. We all have decent Internet connections, are all somewhat tech savvy, and think that by leveraging the Internet we can maybe provide for our needs better and at lower cost by buying some hardware and doing it ourselves.
How would Slashdotters go about implementing such a family-oriented, distributed cloud platform? What hardware? What applications, beyond simply the preservation and sharing of family data, (grandkids photos, home videos and more) would be good to leverage such a platform? Security Cameras? HTPC? VoIP? Home Automation?
Primary requirements are Cheap, Secure, Reliable.

Comment Re:Let's break gov't (Score 1) 618

That's basically the purpose of our entire structure of government, to prevent any one part of it from assuming too much power and doing too much damage. Our government is based on the fundamental distrust of people in power and government in general. And the result has been the most prosperous and free nation in the history of the world. I'm mystified as to why people nowadays want to go the opposite direction, why they suddenly believe government knows best--government that is run by people as messed up as everyone else on the planet.

Comment you're forgetting 4th grade science. Obama agrees (Score 1) 618

You're forgetting grade school science. The experiment, study, or calculations should be reproducible one person does should be able to be done by other scientists. If someone working for Chicago Solar claims that tree rings indicate that ... and therefore San Francisco will be underwater by the year 2000, other scientists should be able to look at those same tree ring photos, do the same calculations, and end up with the same result.

If a student at TTI runs an analysis of the dihydrogen monoxide levels published by the national weather service, any scientist running the same calculations on the same data should get the same result. THAT'S reproducibility, it's a basic foundation of science and it was on the test in about 4th grade.

If the data is kept secret and the calculations are kept secret, that's not reproducible. That's not science, that's mysticism - tea reading.

Comment Re:Well (Score 1) 618

What does "reproducible" mean? If there are 100 attempts to reproduce the results, and only 99 of them agree, is it reproducible? Do attempts at reproducing the results include work done by the very companies opposed to the regulations, who can't disclose all the details of their work because they're "proprietary"? Does it include work done by the equivalent of creation "scientists"? Can you tie a proposed regulation up in the courts for years because only 99 out of 100 attempts succeeded? Is there fine print saying that a regulation can't be implemented as long as there is "any reasonable legal challenge" or some other lawyerspeak BS that means throw a monkey wrench into the works?

Why don't you go read it and find out?

Or you could keep ranting and praising our glorious EPA who would never do anything wrong and must be trusted unequivocally to the point of not requiring them to base regulations with enormous economic and environmental and human impact on actual, reproducible science.

There's definitely no way that you're the dupe.

Comment Re:wait what? (Score 1) 618

Also, this throws the precautionary principle out the window: until something is proven harmful, it can't be regulated. History shows that things often aren't obviously harmful until widely deployed, even though it was obvious to people who thought about it early on that there was likely to be a problem. That sort of hypothesis would argue for study first, then use product. But this rule would require use product, then study.

Neither extreme is reasonable or wise. Some people think that radio waves are cooking our brains and causing cancer. Should the EPA outlaw cell phones because "it was obvious to people who thought about it early on that there was likely to be a problem"? Or should it base its regulations on scientific studies and reasonable evidence?

If the precautionary principle is, "If we (do|don't do) X, something bad might happen, therefore we must (do|not do) X!" then I think the precautionary principle should be thrown out the window. We need to advocate intelligence and wisdom, not dogmatic, arbitrary rules.

Leave it to--well, I was going to say "Slashdot," but I'll just go with "the Internet"--to simultaneously complain about anti-science "denialists" and pro-science "Republicans." Their true colors are showing.

Comment Re: "Not Reproduclibe" (Score 1) 618

Not reproducible implies no uncertainty in a measurement.

So you're objecting to this common-sense, science-advocating, holding-government-responsible bill based on your own, arbitrary, made-up "implication," and advocating instead irreproducible "science"?

And you call Republicans scientifically illiterate and stupid.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy." -- Dr. Emilio Lizardo

Working...