Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Submission + - Nearest Star Has Earth-sized Planet in its Habitable Zone (

Flash Modin writes: In a shocking find, astronomers Wednesday announced their discovery of an Earth-sized planet orbiting the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, just 4.2 light-years away. This warm world, cataloged as Proxima b, sits smack in the middle of its habitable zone — the sweetest of sweet spots — where liquid surface water could exist. But Proxima Centauri is not like our sun. It’s a cool, low-mass star known as a red dwarf. So the planet only qualifies as potentially habitable because it circles its sun in an orbit tighter than Mercury’s.

Comment Re:WAIT (Score 4, Interesting) 97

Cox is generally the least shitty of the US cable ISPs. Admittedly, this is a terribly low bar, but most surveys have rated them somewhere around "adequate" which puts them light years ahead of Comcast/etc.

Also, as Churchill once said, "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

Comment Re:Cox Vs RIAA (Score 1) 225

Cox was a halfway decent ISP when I had them. I would have gladly continued service with them had I not moved out of the area for work, because they're far better than any of the other large cable ISPs (coughComcastcough).

More importantly, they also tried to stand up against this extortionist crap, rather than just voluntarily roll over on their customers. They went to court to fight it, and sadly lost, but that effort counts for something in my book at least.

Comment Re:Wait for the conspiracy (Score 1) 285

It's more that Assange is not exactly a disinterested party in this, he has an agenda and an incentive to not be truthful about the source of the information. We do have quite a bit of information from multiple sources, including several major security companies. Could they be getting bribed to cover for the DNC? I certainly won't say it's impossible, but given the fact that their business model primarily relies on them being good at what they do, and accurately identifying the threat actors behind the breaches they get paid to come assess, if they were ever caught acting as PR flacks for someone and putting up BS, their reputation would be utterly ruined. Were that the case, I'd hope they were getting paid utterly ridiculous sums of money by the DNC.

It would be nice if the media would 1. dig more into the content of the leaks and 2. investigate the source of the leaks and give us facts rather than try to spin some kind of "Trump is a Russian plant" conspiracy theory.

Like these?

Disagree with the conclusions all you like, but there's certainly not a lack of facts or investigation going on. I also haven't seen any serious suggestions of Trump being a Russian plant (outside of biased partisan stuff at least). I have seen lots of speculation that Russia/Putin have a strong interest in backing Trump, or that Trump is favorable towards Russian interests, but that's hardly the same thing.

Comment Re:Why weren't the Republicans also hacked? (Score 1) 285

The only evidence the DNC was hacked as opposed to the target of a whistleblower is from the security firm the DNC hired themselves.

I keep seeing this quoted, but Crowdstrike's conclusions were also confirmed by Fidelis and Mandiant/FireEye, i.e. their competitors:

The evidence that the hacks originated in Russia is circumstantial, and there is no evidence it was state sponsored.

Definitively and absolutely making an attribution call is very difficult, but this is hardly the case of using one indicator to state "Well it was Russia." The research, evidence, and conclusions are all clearly laid out, and while they didn't point to a smoking gun, there's a reasonably clear case that the majority of the signs point to Russian APT activity as being behind the intrusion:

Comment Re:There used to be a time... (Score 4, Informative) 285

Odd, because if anything, I see the exact opposite. From my experience, the (big/mainstream) media seems very keen on trying to achieve false balance, even to the point of ridiculousness, by giving "both sides" the opportunity to say whatever their position is, even if one of those is grossly factually incorrect. They get lambasted by both sides for it, albeit usually at different times.

And if anything, the push to replace fact-based media with opinion-based hasn't come from journalism schools, it's come from the rise of explicitly partisan media, first on the right, and then followed by the left. The cry of "biased mainstream media" has been a largely self-serving one, both from politicians whose interest it was to push back on evidence-based yet unfavorable stories, never-mind from the purveyors of alternate media who have it in their direct interest to attack their competition. And it's not going away, either - the internet enables everyone to access any number of sources, right or wrong, evidence or opinion based.

Ultimately, it's not possible anymore to simply rely on someone else to do your critical thinking for you. You, the reader, have to assess things like the bias of the source, their past record, the evidence presented, et cetera. Don't trust it just because website X or news commentator Y said so. This goes for everyone, not just right or left or center.

Comment Re: Clintons have killed tons of people (Score 1, Flamebait) 706

Basically, we can either choose to believe that:
A) The Clintons are merciless killers whose cunning conspiracy knows no bounds, but are also so cluelessly inept as to get caught for stupid stuff that would be much more easily hidden than a string of murders, OR
B) This is a bunch of conspiracy BS.

I've been hearing this same crap for almost 24 years now. No amount of investigations by any number of conservative lawmakers has made anything stick, nor has the right-wing media been able to do anything more than rumormonger about fringe innuendo and conspiracy schlock. Cry wolf enough times, I stop believing you after I keep not seeing any wolves. Sorry, I'm just not buying it.

Comment Re:Capitalism is good... (Score 4, Interesting) 160

The State is already choosing the winner though - to protect the incumbent monopolist (Comcast/AT&T/etc as varies by which region). We're also not talking about a lean efficient private company being defended from a government competitor that runs at a loss thanks to tax money, but rather, a bloated monopoly incumbent providing poor service at usurious rates to the point that the citizens of those cities are so fed up that they're ready to vote for anything that might be better.

And in the case of Chattanooga, they already know it is, because EPB (the power company there) has been providing Gigabit internet for years. It's the people just outside Chattanooga that want to get in on that, but thanks to Tennessee state law (and Georgia on the other side of the city) passed at the explicit behest of Comcast/etc, they can't get it.

This is what they want to sell you as "capitalism" - a natural monopoly, reinforced by the State by preventing competition of any sort.

Comment Re:While It Sucks... (Score 4, Insightful) 160

...that Providers enjoy a monopoly, they do so because the elected officials provided it.

The proper solution is through electing officials that will revoke the monopolies, not allow the Federal Government to intrude in State Business because once you allow that, you are likely to see i in other things that you decidedly don't want.

So why is it bad when the Federal Government tells a State what to do, but it's a-okay when the State tells a City what to do?

You do realize that the Federal Government is perfectly authorized to regulate interstate commerce, right?

By the way, it's also not so easy to simply elect officials based on a single issue, on any level except the local, unless you manage to make that issue a single hot-button, which really only occurs for a very few number of sparing things. Furthermore, it's not always simply the case of "enforced monopoly", because in many cases the amount of investment needed to wire a city in competition with an established provider is very large, and the expected rate of return just doesn't justify a second private company making it, so passing a community bond issue is really your only option short of praying to Google to come to your town.

Comment Re:Good (Score 3, Insightful) 534

It's an interesting chicken/egg question. Are they failing because they refuse adblockers, or are they failing already, with that being just a symptom? I know my anecdotal experience has been to stop visiting those two sites ever, but I'm possibly an outlier.

Now, it's a reasonable argument that anyone using an adblocker wasn't helping their revenue stream to begin with, but that may be too simple an answer. Even adblocked pageviews have value to a site, because people don't simply read web pages in a vacuum. They share stories with their friends, that might not otherwise see them. Cut off the adblocked portion of the internet audience, and you're reaching a lot less people, and that's where you lose the pageviews that pay you. I would also posit that internet users that employ adblock are more likely to be active/heavy users of the internet, but that's conjecture on my part.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you would know the value of money, go try to borrow some. -- Ben Franklin