Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:CRISPR for the masses (Score 2) 161

That's an interesting thought- I hadn't thought of giving humans genes for cold-hardiness, but certainly, even beyond increased Mars/Antarctica survivability, cold-resistant humans would require less energy costs in deep space exploration. If we ever got advanced enough to send a ship off to another star system, having humans that have lower energy requirements could allow us to send more humans further.

Comment Re:Serial Entrepreneur (Score 4, Insightful) 225

At least he's able to get things started and then bring in the people to see his projects to fruition. SpaceX is moving along nicely. Tesla cars are on the roads. If only 50% of his projects take-off he's doing well.

We need innovative people like him to really shake things up, even if he does get bored and move on to something else before his projects fully reach completion.

Comment Re:Let's be clear on what we mean by election hack (Score 1) 249

True, although, it could still happen. At least half the time there is a currently sitting president, whose nomination is almost 100% assured. The rest of the time one party might be more settled than another; for example, I don't think many people thought Hillary would lose the democrat nomination, but the republican nomination was very much up in the air.

The next election, Trump is almost guaranteed to win republican primary as sitting President, republicans might as well try influencing the democrat primary.

(of course there are other offices for play, other than President, but that seems to be the main one people focus on)

Comment Re:Let's be clear on what we mean by election hack (Score 1) 249

I don't know if it actually happened, but there was encouragement by some democratic activists to participate in open GOP primaries to ensure DT was the candidate due to his weakness as a candidate (IIRC, RMV, YMMV). I, personally don't have a problem with that, because open primaries are stupid to begin with.

Nothing to stop someone registering with a party they dislike to try impact the primary of a rival. My own personal opinion is that George Washington was correct in his assessment that political parties are a bad thing for democracy and that they should be avoided.

I would rather see a situation where there are no party primaries (at least no primaries that receive government money. Most states only fund the top two parties which encourages the ridiculous two-pole scenario we have today). If private parties want to fund and arrange their own primaries, I guess can't stop them and reluctantly could agree with that.

I'd like to see a Presidential election where the Presidential candidates don't officially represent ANY party. There are two rounds of voting. First round everyone votes for whoever they think is the best candidate. The top two candidates then run against each other a month later in a second election where the only choices are one of those two candidates.

Comment Re:Let's be clear on what we mean by election hack (Score 1) 249

I'm an independent. In general I hate both leading parties.

That said, I particular didn't like Ted Cruz, who looked likely to win the nomination at one point. I considered registering as a republican and voting in my state's primary FOR Trump thinking America wouldn't be so stupid to elect Trump if he beat Cruz to the nomination. My feeling that Hillary, as horrible as she would be, couldn't possibly be as bad as Cruz. (Kasich and Lessig looked the least worst from each party to me).

In hindsight, I'm glad I didn't, so I can't consider myself in anyway responsible for that abomination coming to power. However, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if many independants and democrats did vote for Trump in the primary thinking he couldn't possibly win. Head to head against Hillary he fared worse than any other candidate in the Republican field against Hillary, he would be the democrats obvious pick who they would rather face.

Comment Re:Stop repeating the meme (Score 0) 249

I'm not saying hacking did occur, but districts with electronic voting machines voted consistently higher for Donald Trump in swing states compared with paper ballots in the same states. If only the paper ballot votes were counted in the swing states, Hillary would have won.

This could be coincidence, pure statistical noise, or correlated with some other factor that makes both the above true. We'll probably never know. It seems unlikely someone would be able to hack so many machines without anyone finding out.

However, Trump kept saying the election was rigged, maybe he was right.

Comment Re:Not gonna happen (Score 1) 400

Russia isn't really a superpower any more.

They're a military power, a nuclear power and a regional power, but they lack the ability to truly impact global politics (other than by influencing foreign elections to elect their puppets).

Financially, they're not in the top 10.
Militarily, yes, they can fire missiles at you, but they're only able to directly invade or occupy their immediate neighbours.

Their navy is nothing impressive. For example they only have 1 Aircraft carrier, less than Australia, Egypt, France, Italy, Japan, and the US. No greater than Brazil, China, India, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, and the UK.

So whereas their military threat poses a menace to their immediate neighbours, and their nuclear arsenal is 2nd to none, in a conventional battle they can only worry their immediate neighbours; Eastern Europe, Asia.

Their brazenness comes down to their nuclear arsenal. Something they can't use without major repercussions. And whereas their land and air forces may be quite strong, they're not world-beaters, and in any long drawn war, Russia would lack the capital to maintain a big war or create the industry needed to sustain one. Russia is easily neutralized by stopping oil trade.

Take away Russia's nukes and they wouldn't be a significant threat.

Comment Enforcement (Score 5, Insightful) 142

How do you enforce a digital Geneva convention?

You unfriend any nation state from your nation's facebook page if they break the convention? The regular Geneva Convention is hard enough to enforce, a digital one will be even harder because it's harder to prove an actor is really from a location or nation. Even if an assailant traced back to Russia is caught breaking the convention online and Russia "fails to catch" the person responsible they can claim he was a Ukrainian acting on behalf of Ukraine from within their borders.

Even the regular Geneva Convention isn't really respected anymore. You've got the US brazenly violating it in Gitmo. Iraqi troops during the gulf war were violating it. No-one really takes it seriously anymore.

Comment Re:Hmm, marketing dept confusion on the value add? (Score 5, Interesting) 79

Just because they're not showing ads in your e-mail inbox doesn't necessarily mean they're not data-mining you to use information collected about you from your e-mail inbox.

For example, contents of your e-mail in gmail might be used to target ads against you outside of gmail as your browse the web. I don't use Outlook today, but the ads in Gmail are very minimal, such that, I don't notice them. However, I do notice that ads in my web browser have come from things triggered by e-mails I receive.

I'd pay to get rid of having data from my e-mails saved to target ads to me- actual ads in my e-mail provider though is almost nothing and not worth paying to get rid of. It's not the ads I mind- it's the fact they're data-mining my e-mail in the first place.

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.

Working...