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


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:Inquisition (Score 1) 394

Bull-fucking-shit yourself. Opposition to the global climate control movement is NOT based on denying that, in general, increased CO2 concentrations can have warming impacts. It's based on, among other things, questioning the level of impact, actual historical baselines, other potential causal factors (over many of which humans have no control), and feedback and self-correction mechanisms that may exist to moderate warming caused by increased CO2 (and other gases) concentration in the atmosphere.

The idea that any debate over these very serious issues is tantamount to a denial of the fundamental laws of the fucking universe is so ludicrous as to make me believe you are either a fucking moron or a religious fanatic. You seem to consider the IPCC reports as holy writ, revealed by the higher power of "science," and thus unassailably accurate and unquestionable.

Comment Re:tax fraud (Score 4, Informative) 301

There is an amazing lack of understanding of what being a 501(c)(3) non-profit means. Non-profits most certainly can (and regularly do) invoice for services rendered. They are not "non-revenue" corporations, simply non-profit.

There is no fraud involved if a non-profit performs services in return for an agreed fee, or contracts to perform those services in the future in return for a fee either paid up front or after the services have been rendered.

The only thing the non-profit cannot do is take the surplus funds over and above their expenses at the end of the year and distribute those as dividends or ownership distributions to its "shareholders" or board members.

Now, if the non-profit has what's called "unrelated business income," that is income generated from activities it conducts that are not really connected, other than financially, with its mission, then it may have to pay taxes on those (for example, if a non-profit devoted to supporting a university buys commercial property as an investment, and leases that property out to businesses, that rental income may be "unrelated business income"). But that does not destroy their non-profit status for the rest of the funds they receive.

This is not, of course, definitive tax advice, but your post is about the 10th in this thread I've seen that has the very, very, very wrong idea that being a 501(c)(3) means you can't charge for services provided. They can, and they do all the time.

Comment Re:Too bad someone didn't figure this all out (Score 5, Insightful) 146

Right on. Moreover, who benefits from all this, anyway? The idea is that the patient benefits, because an ER doc at one facility can see all of that patient's health records when treating him. But what if the patient doesn't want that? The reality is that all this centralized electronic data will benefit insurance companies, not patients. Once certain things (epilepsy, say) are flagged in your electronic, accessible to any person authorized by law to see them (and that will be insurance companies, governments, and probably your own employer at some point), then it's there, and you're tagged for life. Good luck getting a driver's license. Or overcoming the stigma of some unpopular disease.

I don't WANT all of my medical records out there. I don't think it will benefit me or my health. But these days I have little choice.

Comment Re:Needs new leadership (Score 5, Insightful) 325

Except that Warner Brothers DOES care, because if you have 300 different apps, you're very likely to decide that signing up for WB's service, going through all the hassle of giving your CC info to ONE MORE site, fixing compatibility issues with their ONE MORE player, etc., is just not worth it, when you just want to watch frickin' Batman tonight.

Remember, movies compete not just with other movies, but with other leisure activities, including TV. "Honey, which app do I go to to watch Batman?" "I don't know, what studio came out with that one, again?" "Heck if I can remember!" "Well, look it up on the IMDB." "I can't the tablets in the other room!" "Well screw it, let's just watch that episode of Criminal Minds that got recorded on the DVR last night."

Comment Re:want to see something really scary? (Score 3, Insightful) 103

Mod parent up. TFA says: "the social security number system has a huge security flaw — social security numbers are predictable if you know a person’s hometown and date of birth."

We should read that as sounding as absurd as: "the phone numbering system has a huge security flaw -- phone numbers are discoverable if you know a person's name." This was NOT a design flaw. Nobody, as best I can tell, ever thought, when designing the system, that an SSN should be treated like a PIN, a number known only to the individual, where knowledge of the PIN is considered strong evidence of the identity of the person.

The single best thing which could be done for security at this point is to publish a nation-wide database of all SSNs matched with the names registered to those SSNs, to totally destroy the idea that SSNs should be "secret" identifiers.

The SSN exists to establish that we're identifying the John Doe who was born to Jim and Jane Doe on January 1, 1972 in Madison, Wisconsin, rather than the John Doe who was born on January 8, 1963 in New York City, or the John Doe who was born to Bill and Joan Doe on January 1, 1972 in Madison Wisconsin. It is an identifier, not a PIN.

I'd like a good class action lawyer to consider a nice lawsuit against any creditor who acts on the assumption that somebody who knows a person's SSN must be that person, or authorized by that person to take action on their behalf.


Submission + - WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer r (cnn.com) 2

suraj.sun writes: Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.

Before its announcement Tuesday, WHO had assured consumers that no adverse health effects had been established.

A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."

What that means is that right now there haven't been enough long-term studies conducted to make a clear conclusion if radiation from cell phones are safe, but there is enough data showing a possible connection that consumers should be alerted.

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html

Comment Re:Same here. No retina == no buy. (Score 2) 1118

In addition to the lack of retina display, there are some underlying technical issues which prevent professional photographers from using the iPad. Many photographers would like to use an app related to Adobe's Lightroom for immediate importing, tagging, and initial review and screening of photos from a photoshoot. But because of Apple's restrictions on direct writing of files and a few other technical issues, this is not apparently possible at this time, according to Adobe. If Apple and Adobe were to find a way to resolve these issues, the iPad would be a perfect device for a photographer to use in conjunction with his existing work-flow. As it stands now, though, the iPad is only really useful for displaying work that's been reviewed and edited on other machines, or for doing the very simple manipulations and organization allowed by Apple's own apps.

Comment Re:hmm (Score 1) 368

Fair enough. I do note that my coming out of sleep time is about 5 seconds, compared to your 30-40. And you said you're running Ubuntu. As I said, I can't run the software I need on Ubuntu. If all I did was web surfing and some office document work, fine. But for the photography work I do, the Adobe tools are the fastest, easiest tools to use available, and they're not on Linux.

But your main points are perfectly valid. I just get peeved when some /.ers wildly assert that Mac users are just distracted by pretty things, rather than recogniziting that at least a few of us are simply willing to pay more for a product which does in fact go that extra 10%.

Comment Re:hmm (Score 1) 368

Well, I bought my MacBook Pro 17" last year because it was lighter and thinner than my previous comparably equipped Dell, had a longer battery life, and had a much more reliable and speedy OS than the Dell. Is a "good" OS worth several hundred extra dollars? To me, you bet. For me, the price premium is justified simply because I don't have to wait a minute for the machine to wake up from sleep every time I lug it from home to the office or vice versa, or when I come back from lunch. Not having to reboot at least once a week (usually much more often) is also worth some of that cost. And I didn't have to spend hours of my life digging into obscure settings and learning how to set everything just right to make that happen. Also, on my Dell laptop, I often found that I'd be in the middle of typing, in a browser or on the word processor, and some other high priority task would kick in for unknown reasons, and what I typed wouldn't be displayed for several seconds. That hasn't happened with the Mac. Also worth a good chunk of money to me.

As for your Linux PC, please. As another responder noted, Lightroom is THE easiest to use, most powerful photo-editing and photo-organizing software out there. Photography is my major hobby, and switching to Lightroom has drastically reduced the time it takes me to sort, select, and edit my photos. That caliber of software is not available on Linux at the current time.

So thank you, I think my choice of the MacBook Pro was quite rationale given my needs and what's currently available on the market. A pretty case had very, very little to do with it. If Dell or somebody else could make a Windows machine function this well, I can assure you I'd be happy to buy it... and then there would be real competition, and Apple would have to lower its prices some and no longer make more money per PC than anybody else. Apple decided to compete on performance... REAL performance, not tech spec porn performance... and it's winning, and thus making more money.

Slashdot Top Deals

One good reason why computers can do more work than people is that they never have to stop and answer the phone.