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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:So... what is it? (Score 2, Insightful) 128

Wayland's an effort to stuff a pointless layer of abstraction underneath X on Linux in order to make performance worse and debugging more difficult.

(Yes, yes, they say it's an effort to replace X. But look at how they're doing the compatibility with X - running a full X server on Wayland in order to run X apps. Then look at how much effort they've put into making Wayland portable to other varieties of *nix.)

Comment Re:Contributions NOT wanted (Score 1) 279

It wouldn't be a "publicly acceptable reason" if it didn't have plausibility at a first glance.

The question, then, is if any of the reasons given actually have any merit, as opposed to mere plausibility. Which would require someone to come up with an example of when a CLA actually saved a project, or a lack of a CLA actually killed a project.

Comment Re:what's the basis for the dispute? (Score 1) 226

The basis is that Nokia is a bunch of idiots that actually tried to do manufacturing in India, showing all the judgment they did when they went with Windows Phone as a platform.

See, India's intelligentsia, by and large, doesn't like manufacturing. It might be necessary to some degree, but, offered a chance to replicate Taiwan or China's success by starting with cheap manufacturing, they'd decline. They want to jump straight ahead to a service/software economy via education rather than pass through an intermediate step of actually making physical things. So the basic self-interested counterbalances that you'd see elsewhere ("But we need to learn from Nokia so we can do this!" or "We need to treat Nokia well so others will build plants here too!") are weakened.

So, there's going to be a new owner for the factory, and thus there's an opportunity to extract protection money. After all, it's not like India wants manufacturing anyway.

Comment Re:Unless, of course, you study the author... (Score 5, Interesting) 726

reflected the chauvinism of the nationalist, technocratic exceptionalism of the '50s -better living through chemistry, etc that presaged the rise of the military industrial complex and corporatism masking itself as progress.

Oh, yeah, that's Heinlein, all right, as exemplified by his very next book, Stranger in a Strange Land.

Look, Robert Heinlein was a writer of speculative fiction. The whole damn point was to extrapolate, odd consequences included. Which is why you get such radically different results (Double Star, Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, for example, all having completely incompatible takes on modern democracy) depending on what premises Heinlein was playing with at the time.

Ideally making the point to the thoughtful reader that the reader's society and that society's accepted theories, conscious and unconscious, are just as guilty of absurdities as those explored in the books. But some readers are too dense to notice that, and some are so invested in the propriety of their absurdities that they abandon all rational thought in their defensive denouncements.

Comment Re:Province or nation? (Score 1) 262

It's an analogy.

Taiwan is an island. It wouldn't matter if the People's Republic of China, Republic of China, United States, and United Nations all deny it is one; it clearly is surrounded on all sides by water. "According to who?" is a pointless question; it's an observable fact. If the PRC, ROC, US, and UN all denied it, it would simply mean they're all denying reality.

Similarly, Taiwan is a sovereign nation. It doesn't matter if the People's Republic of China, Republic of China, United States, and United Nations all deny it is one; it clearly is not actually under the control of China or anyone else and just as clearly is not in control of the mainland. "According to who?" is a pointless question; it's an observable fact. That the PRC, ROC, US, and UN all deny it simply means they're all denying reality.

Comment Re:Dark matter fighting dark energy (Score 1) 293

Possible, yes, it just seems less likely than the existence of WIMPs.

The trouble is the Bullet Cluster lensing pretty much requires non-visible matter, even with the theories that assume relativity is wrong at large scales. It seems you can reconcile TeVeS with the Bullet Cluster using lots of neutrinos instead of WIMPs, but then when you plug that sort of neutrino abundance in TeVeS, you apparently get other inconsistencies elsewhere.

(Now, apparently STVG manages to handle the Bullet Cluster and galactic rotational curves without WIMPs . . . it'll be interesting to see what happens when people poke at that a bit more.)

Comment Re:Physicists know (Score 1) 293

Maybe at very large size and mass such as galaxies, general relativity doesn't hold and there's a better theory for explaining motion and gravity. If so we wouldn't have to invent nonexistent dark matter to account for the faster-than-expected galactic rotation and other things.

Maybe. Physics does have people working that line (TeVeS with massive neutrinos to explain the Bullet Cluster, Moffat's STVG). But WIMPs still are considered the most likely candidate.

Slashdot Top Deals

A freelance is one who gets paid by the word -- per piece or perhaps. -- Robert Benchley