Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:tips (Score 1) 695

Except that in most states, a homeowner is not legally allowed to touch the meter in any way.

Plus, if there is something wrong with the meter / base there is danger of personal injury. You could be badly burned or killed.

Let the power company do its job. They know what to look for and what safety precautions to take.

Comment Re:tips (Score 1) 695

Now, imagine you're in a basket truck or just climbing a pole, 30 feet off the ground, and something like that happens... Death is a serious possibility even if it's not directly from the electricity.

However, I still feel the risk to linemen is minimal - as someone else pointed out, they know how to deal with live wires, because the other pair is live, and I'm certain they treat every wire as though it were live in any case. Furthermore, if you were backfeeding the grid with your generator, it'd only last for a very brief moment, because the load would be too much for the generator anyway. But we shouldn't take the chance anyway.

Comment Re:Physics of incandescents (Score 1) 685

If you're running an electrical heater you've already lost. That should be banned (already is, in many places).

Uh... what?

You have to heat your home somehow. If electricity is cheaper than the alternative (usually gas), why not use electricity?

In some places, electricity comes from burning the sort of fuel that could easily and safely be burned at home, so you lose efficiency... but that's not true everywhere. If your electricity comes from a nuclear reactor, hydroelectric dam, or garbage incinerator, why not use it for heating?

Comment Re:Kill!!! (Score 1) 855

The worst one I ever had was a black and white scan of a printed screenshot. I asked the guy about it and he apparently had taken the screenshot, pasted it in to Word, printed that and then used an MFP's "scan to email" function to send it to me.

Y'see, that one I don't mind so much. It shows that the person knew what the end result had to be and thought about what they could do to achieve that given what they knew.

It was needlessly complex and not very useful in the end, but when you deal with people who refuse point blank to realise that everything they've been asked to do today is a tiny variation on one common theme and NOT to phone you every single time for instructions... damned if I'm not going to be impressed if they at least try.

Comment Re:Correlation (Score 1) 570

The issue is that I'm taxed out the wazoo to pay for the education you're throwing away.

No, the issue is that students are forced into classes whether they want to be there or not. If kids who'd rather spend their time elsewhere were allowed to do so, you'd save tax dollars and they'd be happier.

Did you know that it's legal - and often even encouraged - to sign up for more difficult and challenging classes so that you're not wasting everyone's time?

Legal, sure. Possible? Not very often. When I was in high school, we took the classes we were required to take, with room for a couple electives. If something like Pacific Northwest History was a waste of our time and our teachers' time, too bad - we had to be there anyway.

Comment Re:Bad Summary (Score 1) 933

You're proceeding as if child porn were illegal for the reason that it depicts something illegal. But that's not the case, and no legislator or judge has ever suggested that.

Simulated child porn is illegal because it is a representation of something that is illegal. There were no people harmed in drawing a cartoon. Yet, depicting something icky in a cartoon made that cartoon illegal. Thus, depicting other icky things, like murders and drug use could be treated the same.

It is illegal because of its deleterious effects on individuals and on society, combined with its lack of any conceivable beneficial value.

If that's your argument about why it's illegal to draw sex with children and go to jail and draw a murder and stay free, then you are asserting that murder has no deleterious effects and that it has some conceivable beneficial value.

Sexual fantasy is an extremely powerful motivator.

So is greed. Should we outlaw money?

I don't think it makes any sense to allow materials that serve no purpose other than bolstering adults' fantasies of having sex with children.

Oh, so you are asserting you are a pedophile? After all, the material is bolstering your fantasies of having sex with children, so you must have those fantasies, and you must know that viewing child porn increases those fantasies. Otherwise, you are making stuff up that is contrary to existing studies, and for you to make such statements as fact, that should only be because you are a pedophile that acts on such urges, right? So, you are a liar or a pedophile (or both). For those out there that aren't going to lie to hide things they think icky, the studies show that those with outlets (like viewing child porn) are less likely to act on those impulses, not more likely. If there was some way to generate (simulated) child porn for very-low cost without actually involving children, then there would be no more financial motivation for the creation of real child porn (saving children) and those with urges would have more outlets (saving children). However, that thing with good points and no bad ones for children is hated because of all the adults out there that will pass laws to make things they find icky illegal, even if it causes an increase in actual harm to children. They aren't out there to help children, but to help their own selfish conscience. When people stop legislating morality and start legislating safety, we'll have more safety and more liberty.

Comment Re:Wrong tool for the job (Score 1) 306

I think you both have good points. The parent's point is that you don't need to click on a bubble, you can click on the icon or trayed program or whatever instead, your point is what's the harm and I agree. There can be multiple ways of doing different things, so why not let the user decide how they want to do them. Notifications/reminders/etc should certainly be options though.

I think the reality is, it's easier for many users just to click on a bubble, then there's even less thinking required. You don't have to search for the icon that is blinking, you just click on whatever pops up, sort of like a game show buzzer, then the desktop environment just delivers whatever it wanted to tell you about on a silver platter right to your FACE.

Comment DRM ha! (Score 1) 664

They can DRM all they want. I haven't played their pop music game since they killed Napster. Anything I want to listen to I play myself on the guitar. I'm no Jimi Hendrix but I do well enough and the satisfaction of doing well enough is as great as hearing the virtuoso himself.

And I often forget to flagellate myself for not paying performance fees.

Comment Re:Doesn't have a built in update mechanism? (Score 1) 376

I have left windows (XP) for hours after a patch and it has never rebooted itself. After every 20 minutes or so it will issue a pop-up reminding you of the patch and need to reboot, but never has it just done it unrequested. But then I have automatic installation turned off. I allow notify only, otherwise you get WGA, and the malicious software tool installed which is bad news. Poor suckers who installed SP3, even though they were already up to date...

On that note, has anybody had issues with something named au_.exe after the SP3 install ? I never heard of it before but now there are hundreds of people with misbehaving software (not all of MS origin) and they can't get rid of it. AV just doesn't do the job and I run linux for anything promiscuous anyway so it's hard to pinpoint a solution.

Slashdot Top Deals

It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.