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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Thanks, Trump! (Score 1) 89

I've also wondered if the whole smart device thing could end up being a net bonus -- for example, during the cheap hours, freezers/electric water heaters/dishwashers/etc. could do their thing.

Call me when your washing machine moves the load of colors to be washed in warm water to the dryer by itself, and reloads itself with whites and bleach and switches to hot water afterwards.

Until then, while it's not human intensive while running, washing clothes is pretty human intensive before and after a cycle runs, and in the middle, when the washer->dryer transfer needs to happen.

The "FoldiMate" and "Laundroid" just don't cut it yet (and take power themselves).

Comment Apple has the same problem with launchd (Score 1) 316

Apple has the same problem with launchd.

In Apple's case, the trigger messages are not entirely asynchronous, as with systemd, but they may as well be, since the Mac ports being used most frequently do not have peer information available, and are (effectively) just integers.

This leads to what I call the "on behalf of" problem.

Something starts running. And you want to know *why*. Clearly, it;s running because someone requested one or more of the services it provides -- but there's no way to know who it is running "on behalf of" to provide that service.

Say, however, you figure out that service 'C' is running "on behalf of" service 'M'.

Who is service 'M' running "on behalf of"?

In Mac OS X, it's *almost* possible to get the information as to where every thread in everything is pending a response from something else in its stack. But it's not possible to figure out the entity relationship, because you can't trace the other end of a connection.

So I can perhaps figure out that an application is pinwheeling -- that's the cursor that the display server puts up on a Mac OS X application when it's not responding to "are you alive?" chatter from the display server within it's main app loop. It happens when someone does a blocking operation in the main app loop, instead of packaging up the operation that might block, and giving it to a thread delegate instead: it means someone made a coding error, because they expected an operation to never block ...and then it blocked.

So I actually want to see where it's blocked (which I can) and see who it's trying to get work from, that's not responding to the work request -- which I can't, because I can't see "the service on the other end".

Both launchd/Mach ports, and systemd suffer from this problem.

But if I were permitted to ask the question... then I could find the next entity in the chain... and I could ask "what are you waiting on?", and follow the chain down to the actual problem.


The display server puts up the pinwheel, I option-click it (or whatever), and a dialog pops up and says:

MagicDraw is hung waiting for RemoteFilerPro,
which is hung waiting for access to "",
which is hung in the kernel on a permissions check,
which is hung, waiting on DirectoryServices,
which is hung, waiting on mDNSResponder,
which is hung waiting on a network response from "",
which is hung waiting on a response from network interface "Wi-Fi2" ...which would be frigging useful. Because then I could say to myself "Oh. The VPN is down because the Wi-Fi is out. Better reset the router again."

But I can't do that.

Comment Social media companies urge UK government to ... (Score 1) 70

Social media companies urge UK government to issue national ID cards to everyone over the age of 4.

Social media companies also urge the UK government to implement a back end system so that, given the card, they can verify underage status or not in a government database.

Social media companies further urge that the UK government have plans in place, should the ID card be stolen, for issuing a replacement ID with a different number, and repudiation of the stolen ID, such that it's no longer considered valid ID, by maintaining a revocation status bit in the back end verification database.

Social media companies finally state that the plan can not be implemented without these systems being put in place prior to deployments, and if they are unwilling to get the necessary infrastructure built so that it's even possible to comply, the UK government can go stuff themselves.

Comment So does it still let you "always click to flash"? (Score 2) 98

So does it still let you "always click to flash"?

It'd be a real pain in the ass if, by watching one video, I have to always allow Facebook (major example) to run flash content, rather than just the specific flash content I authorize.

Also: where's the "click to run HTML5 video", please?

Comment Well, that's utter bullshit (Score 1) 586

Well, that's utter bullshit.

The very first link's very first sentence in the transcript:

"During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump suggested that he might favor creating a database for Muslims who enter the United States."

That's just adding religious affiliation to the already massive amount of information we collect about visitors entering the U.S., including their fingerprints and criminal records.

It's for visitors.

Slashdot editors: Please corrector your headline to add the word "Visitors" after the word "Muslim", and replace "Muslim-Americans" with "Muslim Visitors" in the first sentence of your summary.


Comment The Garbage Dumpster Argument [Re:Climate chan...] (Score 3, Informative) 328

Ah, the garbage dumpster argument: pile enough garbage up, and tell the reader somewhere in the dumpster one argument might be real; you need to wade through all the garbage to find it.

I don't have time to wade through all the garbage. I'll go with the three strikes you're out approach: if your first three arguments aren't convincing, I'll stop there.

There are lots of reasons I am skeptical of this: 1. A primary method of convincing others is to ridicule and insult them. Notice the responses and downvotes this post will get.

Not relevant.

2. We have seen vastly higher CO2 levels in planetary history

Yep. And, you know what? All of those higher CO2 levels were associated with higher global temperatures! That's not evidence against the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming-- it's evidence for the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming

and right now we are seeing what is actually all time lows..

Nope. Current levels are higher than it's ever been for as long as we can measure the CO2 record from ice cores, well over a million years. I think you're talking about really long ago. In that you'd be correct: carbon dioxide levels were higher before the Pleistocene. These were also, however, times when the Earth didn't have an ice cap or glaciers. So, again: this isn't evidence against the effect of carbon dioxide on climate-- it's evidence for it.

We should expect CO2 increases and, in fact, hope for them as going much below 300 ppm would see the beginning of a massive plant die off - there's a reason commercial greenhouses pump CO2 into their facilities.

Slightly misleading. Carbon dioxide increases plant growth-- but only in environments in which CO2 is the limiting resource, not other nutrients, water, or sunlight. In a greenhouse, where you make sure that the temperature, nutrients, and water are all optimal, sure, it's worth adding CO2. Outside, though, it's only one effect among many.

3. The temperature change we are seeing now is far from unusual, we've seen similar changes in both rate and magnitude before. In fact, what we are seeing now does not stand out from background noise.

Doesn't stand out from the background... over tens of millions of years. Even so, actually, the current rate of warming is pretty exceptional. It does, however, stand out from the background over the period in which we have good measurements of both temperature and of all the other forcing factors, such a solar irradiance. So: no.

Comment Re:Fake news (Score 1) 525

No, what you're saying is that people with no expertise in a field feel that they have an ability to critique a rather specialized field they have no expertise in.

It's a fallacious appeal to authority, full stop.

You are claiming authority without evidence when you argue, but when they argue under the same circumstances, you claim fallacy.

You are engaging in a variant of the false equivalence fallacy called the false inequivallence fallacy.

You right, because you're right, and they're wrong, because they disagree with you, even though you are not an acknowledged expert, nor are you citing sources who are acknowledged experts. Full stop.

Comment Re:It's like I said the other day - if San Francis (Score 1) 328

This reminds me of something I mentioned here on Slashdot just the other day. Though it's not looking like San Francisco will really be underwater by 2020,

Correct. San Francisco is very hilly. They may have to elevate the freeway, but most of it will be fine.

Slashdot Top Deals

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