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

 



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

Comment Re:Imagine (Score 1) 119

As long as we're imagining, let's imagine if they'd spent the last two decades following through the original GNU plan to build a desktop on top of GNUStep, so our long-refined desktop environment sits on top of an API and object model source-compatible with macOS.

Comment Oh, lord, this nonsense again (Score 2) 128

This is meaningless outside of symbolism.

Anybody can set up an alternate root server, and the only thing that makes any particular root server's assignments valuable is if ISPs in general use it. At worst, if ICANN (or any successor) abuses control over the root servers, there will be a few weeks until everybody switches to a fork under new management (probably under a consortium of businesses led by Google anyway). And as the so-called US government oversight of the current servers is entirely without any practical effects at all, so would be "surrendering" it.

The fact that US "control" keeps generating news stories is the obvious reason to give it up; it causes antagonism and controversy without adding any value at all.

Comment Re:I have seen some abuse of this but. (Score 1) 187

"Fair use" is an American legal doctrine (though the Philippines kept it from when it was a US colony and Israel, South Korea, and Poland have recently adopted their own versions), not a UK one. The UK/Commonwealth equivalent is "fair dealing", which is generally more restrictive than US "fair use".

Comment Re:Reading comprehension fail (Score 2) 31

Why assume it's state-sponsored? The Chinese people are perfectly capable of irrational acts of nationalist vandalism all on their own. (It wasn't the Chinese government that denounced the US, attacked KFC and McDonald's outlets, and smashed iPhones in anger over the China-Philippines sea boundaries ruling.)

So, why would angry Chinese attack a Vietnamese target? Simple enough. Because a number of Vietnamese citizens went out and celebrated the sea boundaries ruling, denouncing China and praising the Philippines (without any state support, and in several cases getting arrested by the Vietnamese government for it).

Comment Re:Lack of perspective (Score 1) 85

If you're an honest business, you will see many regulations as an absolute hassle and cost

And if you're a dishonest businessman, the regulations won't hamper you in the slightest, because you'll just lie on the forms. WorldCom, Enron, and Madoff weren't caught by regulators; the only thing that got them was that when business goes sour, you can't pay debts with fictional accounts.

Comment A true blessing (Score 1) 424

So, they decided to ignore the bullshit you imposed on the series halfway through? Thank goodness, that means we're getting back to the real Star Wars.

It's well-documented that you were just making it up as you went along in the original trilogy.

It wasn't until you made the prequels that you had this whole "generational soap opera" "vision" driving the thing, and the result was decidedly inferior. They're tossing away that "saga" nonsense you imposed post-hoc in favor of something that pleases the fans? That's perfect. That's the only way we're ever going to get anything actually true to the actual original vision of Star Wars.

Comment Re:150 years ago... (Score 1) 378

And if on that basis one wanted to say, "We won't colonize even to Mars in the next hundred years", I'd nod along and accept that as a reasonable conclusion.

But if you think it's reasonable to say "never beyond Mars" based on that reasoning, you're a fucking idiot. Nobody could predict 2015 from 1015 (much less from, say, when the pyramids were being built); anyone who thinks he can predict 3015 (much less 5015) from 2015 is the sort that should be immediately dismissed as a fool.

Screw adventurousness or industry; it's just about the folly of drawing absolute conclusions from vastly insufficient data. We don't have physics for, literally, 95% of the universe (you know, all that "dark matter" and "dark energy"), and we certainly don't have any "psychohistory" that can predict human culture a thousand years ahead even if we posit no breakthroughs in physics at all and assume that there will be no genetic engineering that changes basic human psychology.

If you're predicting humanity will be wiped out by global warming or rogue AI or something before we colonize Mars, that's one thing. But "Getting beyond Mars (with humans) is impossible . . . culturally forever" is too stupid for goddamn words.

Comment Re:150 years ago... (Score 1, Interesting) 378

I think even Dr. Friedman wouldn't argue that his thesis necessarily stays valid after some combinations of multiple breakthroughs, be it in physics, AI / neurobiology, cheap energy, physiology...

I grant it's a tradition around here to not actually read the articles, but he says, specifically, "Getting beyond Mars (with humans) is impossibleâ"not just physically for the foreseeable future but also culturally forever." So he's discounting all your physical science breakthroughs on the grounds that human culture will never, ever exploit them.

Which is why Dr. Friedman is, in very technical language, "a goddamn fucking senile idiot".

Comment Re:Science! (Score 3, Funny) 737

You seem to think that condemning humanity to extinction isn't a form of "oppression".

Sure I do. Which is why every single member and employee of every single environmentalist group that's opposed nuclear power since the 1979 National Academy of Science report on the greenhouse effect belongs in prison, for their complicity in preventing the replacement of coal power with nuclear, thus blocking the reduction in the use of fossil fuels necessary to prevent human extinction.

Comment WRONG (Score 5, Informative) 286

The linked article is unfortunately abbreviated and incomplete, and as a result, the conclusions being drawn are wrong.

First off, the Society itself is still an independent non-profit. It just no longer has 100% ownership of the magazine. The effect on the Society is that it will have more money to give to scientists (while 21st Century Fox will have no say in how that money is handed out).

Second, they did not sell a controlling interest; the Society explicitly retains 50% of the Board of Directors for the magazine. The "73%" is Fox's share of profits, not control.

Slashdot Top Deals

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins

Working...