Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:Not good enough! (Score 1) 339

This is the second time I have found someone "in the wild" who thinks Aspects are a good idea. It inspired me to log in after all these years. It seems to me that Aspects are a maintenance and debugging nightmare. Not that there aren't plenty of those already. The main use seems to be letting a developer use printouts to poorly mimic a proper debugger. What is nice about them? I'm willing to be convinced.

Comment Re:This just in (Score 1) 1017

If he is acquitted, he is not suspected any more. He is vindicated

The details may differ in Sweden, but typically in the West, "not proven guilty" is not the same as "proven innocent". Justice systems that do this are based on the idea that it is better to err and let some guilty people go free in order to decrease the number of innocent people who are wrongly convicted.

He may well be proven innocent, as you rightly point out, but there is a middle ground where suspicion might well remain.

Comment Re:Happy Simple Assertion Tuesday, everyone! (Score 1) 837

I haven't shuffled through all of them, or seen a believable analysis of the whole enchilada. But according to one Guardian article, your simple assertion is probably bullshit.

I heard it on that jingoistic, neocon broadcast network NPR. Specifically, On Point with Tom Ashbrook, Monday July 26, with guests Mark Mazzetti (NYT), Nick Davies (Guardian), Richard Haass (some NGO). Mr. Davies and Mr. Mazzetti were among the reporters who reviewed the wikileaks documents before they were published so they have a multi-week head start on the rest of us. link to this episode

Note that the story you link to does not disprove my assertion. Incompetence and bumbling, and even deceit, while indefensible, are not even close to as bad as intentionally killing civilians (at a rate in excess of ten to one) in terror attacks. The Taliban and their supporters are clearly the bad guys in this conflict.

Comment Re:not cleared (Score 1) 701

Except the report did not claim anywhere that it was intentional.

The report didn't have to, because nobody disputes that it was intentional; the authors themselves admitted to writing those emails. The question was whether "hiding the decline" was legitimate or misleading. The report concluded that it was misleading.

Comment not cleared (Score 3, Interesting) 701

From the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review Final Report pdf:

On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a "trick" and to "hide the decline" in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.

Intentionally supplying misleading figures is scientific misconduct. It may be commonplace, but that's no excuse.

Personally, that doesn't bother me much; science has always been politicized between factions who behave unethically in order to further their own theories. What does bother me is the attempt to pass off the results of incompetent software engineering as valid science.

Comment Re:"cyber 9/11" (Score 1) 433

Yes, they could wage a DoS attack to stifle the economy and communications, maybe slow some business down, but people will not die. Alleging that type of attack is even remotely similar to what happened on 9/11 is grossly irresponsible.

It is easy (though not pleasant) to imagine how a prolonged disruption of computer-controlled utilities (power, water, heat, transportation) could cause suffering far in excess of 9/11, especially if current trends are extrapolated into the future. Read RISKS.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.