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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:So in this case where the government behaves (Score 1) 582

The 2nd ammendment is unique. It's the only one that contains justification for the right in question. The "well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd ammendment is the justification not the protected right. The right is grants is as follows: The "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In light of the whole text of the ammendment the supreme court in Heller has interpreted "the people" to mean any "law-abiding, responsible citizen". So the supreme court disagrees with you.. A single person at an airport IS still a "well regulated Militia"..

None the less... the meek and calow have conviced our government to trample our rights for their temporary perception of safety..

Comment Moving the pollution argument is B.S. (Score 2) 443

Gasoline takes between 4kWh and 7.5kWh per gallon to refine. Electric cars can go between 16 (on the low end) and 41 miles (on the high end) on that same amount of electricity. Unless your replacing a gasoline car that gets better that 40mpg you are NOT just moving the pollution. Replacing a car that gets 16mph and you are completely eliminating the pollution from he petroleum refining process and burning at the vehicle, but also REDUCING the pollution generated by the local power plant as your using fewer total kWh. Of course the answer is "it depends" but for the average case you argument is basically pro-oil nonsense..

Comment Re:First HTC drops its quad core chip for a dual c (Score 1) 207

Yes there a "secret".. It's Ahmdal's Law. (
Mobile computing tends to be single task centric, and doesn't yet have the high level of parallelism to utilize a high core count..
It's not rocket science, it's just regular science, and they don't have to play the marketing core count game since there's a dual core now that outperforms...

Comment Re:Glad they didn't go to a backup! (Score 1) 297

Ok.. It appears that they used both. I should have read the whole article.. The hydrazine was expended in a 5N thruster over 12 firings (raising the satelite about 1/7 of the way and changing the inclination), then the 0.25N hall effect thrusters were used for the remaning 19400miles (firing 12hours a day for 8 months)..

Comment Re:Glad they didn't go to a backup! (Score 2) 297

According to this:

They used the hall effect thrusters instead of the hydrazine/nitrogen tetraoxide engine. The hall effect thrusters run on xenon and electricity, so NO they did not use the same fuel source. The hall effect thrusters have a specific impulse of ~8000s instead of the ~300s for hydrazine, so they are insanely fuel efficient, but extremely low thrust. (1/4N vs ~450N for the main engine)..

Comment Re:Locked Bootloaders (Score 1) 282

Mod up if I had the points...

While it appears to be snarky it's actually spot on. No major phone manufacturer will touch the GPLv3 with a 10 foot pole. They simply won't be willing to take the liability of getting caught between a patent lawsuit from some IP troll (or major corporate IP holder like Oracle or Apple) and the onerous GPLv3 that they can't defend themselves from.

Vagueries around derived work and linkage and the patent clause make it completely untenable for any company that has a patent portfolio. (Having a patent portfolio is simply necessary if you want to defend your self from the likes of Oracle/Apple.)

While the FSF can go off and have their hippie free software love in around GPLv3, it's simply not big business friendly. While they don't like it big business is what has driven it to where it is today.

If Android was GPLv3, Android wouldn't exist as the market force it is today....(hence they wouldn't be selling android phones.)


Submission + - Bristol physicists break 150-year-old law (

KPexEA writes: A violation of one of the oldest empirical laws of physics has been observed by scientists at the University of Bristol. Their experiments on purple bronze, a metal with unique one-dimensional electronic properties, indicate that it breaks the Wiedemann-Franz Law.

Submission + - Look who Obama's hired for cybersecurity team ( 4

walterbyrd writes: "Ex-Clinton staffer 'lost' thousands of White House e-mails, booted by DHS for faking credentials . . . Investigators found that Callahan paid a diploma mill thousands of dollars for her bachelors, masters and doctorate degrees in computer science. She back-dated the degrees, all obtained between 2000 and 2001, to appear as if she earned them in 1993, 1995 and 2000, respectively. She landed the job of deputy DHS chief information officer in 2003."

Comment Re:The obvious question (Score 3, Informative) 315

Not necessarily, most Open Source Software (OSS) licenses (eg. GPLv2, EPL, etc.) only kick in on redistribution since you need the license to not be in violation of someone's copyright. You can USE all the OSS you want without complying with the license if you don't redistribute it. On top of that some OSS Licenses don't require that you disclose that there is OSS in your redistributable nor do they require you to provide source. (eg. 3-clause BSD).

In this case however, he's clearly distributing the binaries. Fruit appears to be LGPLv2.1 and Crafty has some goofball custom pseudo-oss license that requires attribution. So if he did copy the code and redistribute he's not complying with the licenses and in violation of copyright law.

I don't find it all that unusual that 2 different good chess programs might make similar decisions, and they don't have the source to compare so unless someone is going to sue and do discovery the claim of plagiarism is (IMO) premature.

The courts exist to settle just these sorts of conflicts, and banning him on supposition is questionable.. IANAL....

Comment No.. No.. No.. (Score 4, Informative) 523

This was Tesla's plan for a while now, and the article says nothing about their business model failing. The cannot use the government funds they were given to develop a sports car, it must be used for the Model S. Also they based the Roadster on the Elise Chassis, and Lotus has quit making them. This isn't reddit or I'd down vote for the horrific summary. There is lots of info in their IPO filing, and elsewhere..

Also the basis of the business model for the Roadster was to smash the image of the electric car being a hippie-green eco-shitbox, which most electric car's to date have been. That was a resounding success.


Comment Re:Options (Score 1) 789

If your driving in such a way that not breaking the law would require you to break a law of physics, your driving recklessly. You have no business driving a heavy truck if you can't do so safely around a law abiding bicycle.

It IS HIS RIGHT to take the lane and you need to plan accordingly. Period.. end of discussion...

Slashdot Top Deals

The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.