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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Why LEGO when we have 3D raytracing programs ? (Score 2) 34

I mean, why NASA has to go the LEGO route when free and opensource 3D raytracing programs are available to all ?

My impression from reading the article is that LEGO is very involved in organizing and funding this contest, and they have no interest in promoting something that is not their product.

Comment Re:Sorry if but.. (Score 2, Informative) 34

Don't build toys, Build real rockets. If you haven't already forgotten how to.

If you read the article, you will see the the prize is just a set of legos and some NASA memorabilia. There is no cash prize, and the Lego sets are donated by Lego. This is costing the taxpayers nothing, is not taking any funds away from NASA's "real" missions, and just might inspire some kids to do something meaningful with their lives.

Comment Re:There goes another Swiss Army knife (Score 5, Insightful) 298

The problem isn't the TSA

The problem isn't the TSA either way. The TSA realizes that the restrictions on small knives and tools are silly and a waste of resources. They wanted to make the change. But they got too much push back from politicians and "think of the children" citizens. So they caved in.

Comment Re:schitzophrenic summary. (Score 1) 128

In all fairness, labeling it Genetically Modified would be scientifically accurate.

In all fairness, requiring them to be labeled as GMO would not be scientific all all.

The assumption that Genetic Modification is a horribly evil thing is certainly superstition, but I consider that a separate issue.

It is not a separate issue when people are trying to subvert the government regulatory process to promote their superstitions.

I'd actually like to know a whole lot more than that myself.

Just because you would like to know doesn't mean other people should be required to tell you. Far more people are concerned about whether their food is kosher or halal. Should we have government regulations requiring food to be labeled as "non-halal"? Of course not, because there is no nutritional difference. Butchers that prepare their meat using kosher or halal methods should be free to advertise them as such, but the government should stay out of it. Same with GMO.

Comment Re:great (Score 2) 128

And you misunderstand the OP; radiation or other mutagens *have* been used to create food crops that are on dinner tables around the world, this process has been going on for some 80 years.

Uff, any citation on that?

Sure. Here you go: Mutation Breeding. At the bottom of the page is a list of food crops produced using these techniques.

Comment Re:schitzophrenic summary. (Score 3, Insightful) 128

they've bribed officials to write laws outlawing GM labeling or bribed officials to pass a law that makes sure they have no liability for *anything*.

Could you please explain what you are talking about? What laws are these? There was recently a ballot initiative in California to require GMO labeling, and it was voted down by the voters not the politicians. Food labeling should be based on science, not superstition, and even for those that want to avoid GMO, it is unnecessary since it is already perfectly legal to label food as "Organic" or "Non-GMO", and since these foods sell for a premium, anyone selling them would be foolish not to label them as such.

Comment Re:great (Score 1) 128

Non-GM foods that come through random mutation via evolution have been tested... over millions of years tested.

Except that evolution doesn't select for plants that are deliciously edible and nutritious. It selects for the opposite: plants that use poisons, bitter tastes, or other strategies to avoid being eaten.

Comment Re:schitzophrenic summary. (Score 3, Informative) 128

Quite frankly the beef(s) *I* have is that is with suing farmers whose crops show the "patented" gene through cross pollination

Perhaps before you have a "beef" with someone, you should spend a few minutes looking at the facts. This mythology about Monsanto suing farmers for cross pollination comes up regularly on Slashdot, and no one is ever able to cite a single case of Monsanto actually suing anyone for that sort of unintentional infringement.

Comment Re:XML? (Score 2) 358

I think that given MS office and LibreOffice are in XML, it shouldn't be difficult at all to reverse engineer in the future.

Yes, the problem is not "data" but "data in proprietary formats" ... and even that is becoming less of a problem. A converter to/from almost anything is usually just a google search away. With VMs and emulators, even proprietary binary programs are easier than ever to deal with. I can run any CP/M or C64 program on my desktop Linux computer using free emulators. This was indeed a "hard problem", but today it is mostly solved.

Comment Re:Nice try? (Score 2) 92

Who's going to blink first?

Unless you are an idiot, you will. When I log in to my bank, the first thing I see (before I enter my password) is my security image. If instead, it starts asking me for my dad's middle name, that is a pretty big clue that something is wrong. If I am logging in from a different machine or a new browser, then that explains it. But if is my normal browser, I will take a hard look at the URL, and probably decide to close the tab and start a fresh session.

I can't see any way for malware to simulate a "normal" login to Bank of America. It may be possible, but what others are describing would not work without raising a lot of suspicions in any non-stupid person.

Comment Re:Nice try? (Score 2) 92

Easy enough to push your username to the real site, scrape the "security image", and then present the legit image to the user.

That doesn't work. If the request doesn't come from a previously authenticated browser, they don't show the image. Instead, you have to answer several security questions (father's middle name, favorite pet, etc.) just to see the image.

Comment Re:Incompetence (Score 1) 154

So they could could engage in private conversations, and feel free to express their true opinions.

Except laws already say that all of this stuff needs to be recorded.

My point was not about what is legal, but about what makes sense. The law says that all official business has to be done through official channels, which are open to public scrutiny. But the result is that we have less effective government because people avoid expressing themselves openly, and set up illegal side channels. Prior to Watergate, nearly everything that happened in the Oval Office was recorded. The tapes of the meetings and phone calls by JFK and LBJ have been a goldmine for historians. But after Watergate nothing was recorded, because the precedent had been set that the recordings could and would be subpoenaed. So the "victory" for transparent government, led to the opposite.

Slashdot Top Deals

Vax Vobiscum

Working...