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:Bogus (Score 1) 535

In other words, don't think about the mounds of scientific evidence, rather think what you tell us to think in spite of it?

I'll get back to you on that. Hold your breath until then. Don't worry about the "need for air", that's just a liberal conspiracy. If you start feeling lightheaded, take a toke from a CO machine. Michelle Bachmann said it's perfectly harmless to breathe and she's not a liberal.

Comment Re:We're not there yet... (Score 1) 535

When that does happen, i wonder if any of the deniers will actually step forward and admit they were wrong? Every time i see a denier post on Slashdot that seems to come from someone who sincerely believes what they're saying i'm tempted to write their name down and ask them about it when that time comes, but i'm far too lazy to actually follow through on that.

I like to be helpful, so I'll sum up the answer you'll receive when that happens:

"Well, excuse me. How could I possibly have heard all of the evidence when I just happened to be sticking my fingers in my ears and going, 'LA LA LA LA,' the whole time, Mr. Know-it-all?"

Comment Re:Who Cares (Score 1) 246

Yes, I realize this. However, their work depended heavily on open source software, including Linux and Apache. Their continued success has, in part, been driven not only by their commercial work, but the continued advancement of open source software and their own contributions to such. As Google was formed the same year as the Mozilla Foundation, the boost that Mozilla gave to the open source community could be said to be a contributor to Google's meteoric rise. Without the aforementioned boost, open source would have advanced at a slower pace. Even if Google continued to be rise, it would have been slower and, instead of becoming the next giant, it would likely have gotten to a point where it was worth a LOT to bigger companies to buy out and even more worth it to Google to sell.

I didn't want to write all that when I made my initial post.

Comment Re:Who Cares (Score 1) 246

Sorry, but I don't deal in "what ifs" or "could haves" or "should haves". That is NOT the past. While you're wasting time dwelling on what might have been, with absolutely no power to change anything, I'm focusing on how to make the the future better.

You are forgiven. And what if you had not made this pointless post? Well, I would not have told you that you can't make the future better without learning from the past and using your imagination. You would have gone forward bereft of the wisdom I had to impart to you. Then you might have made a fool of yourself by repeating it in the future. At the very least, you would have wondered why your efforts to make the future better were failing.

What can we learn from this?

Comment Re:Who Cares (Score 1) 246

Our browsers are Mosaic-based.

For one, Mosaic was the first to show images inline. For this reason alone, not only did its popularity explode, but it made the web more interesting to the average user. For another, Netscape was made by many of the original developers of Mosaic and they built on the concept. And finally, the first Internet Explorer... was a re-branded Mosaic. Every major browser since then has been built on the concept that people became familiar with because of these.

So, basically, what you suggest might have happened... happened. Well done?

Anyway, my thought is more that if Microsoft had bought Netscape in 1994, they would likely have Frankenstein-ed the two browsers together, leaving people with no choice but a single super-bloated monster rather than a choice between two regularly bloated monsters. An alternate browser would have waited for faster Internet speeds so the open source movement could take off and gain enough contributors (and bandwidth) to do something of interest to the mainstream. I say this because with no major competition and the tactics they used to come out on top in the first place, Microsoft would have no serious challengers. Maybe a few commercial browsers for niche markets (Opera is a dubious example, since nothing really makes it "niche" except that it is). Since Mozilla itself was a huge boost to the open source movement, it would likely have taken longer for an open source browser to attract enough developers to keep up with Interscape Exigator, particularly with Microsoft having all of the clout to change technologies faster (sorry... new Windows out... gotta rewrite your entire site...). Google would likely not exist (I was going to say something much less drastic, but when you really think about it, it's probably true).

Ultimately, I'm thinking the whole scenario might have been good for Apple in a way, if they'd played it right. I imagine they could have wound up with a larger share of the home computer market. Don't know if that'd be good or bad.

But we all know that changing the timeline brings unexpected results. There's a chance it'd have gone all "A new challenger appears!"

Comment Re:TrueCrypt (Score 2) 482

Because it's suggestive in what seems to be an unintentionally hilarious way. "Keeppass" would make more sense for what it does, but personally I like the current, suggestive spelling.

It's like those Payless shoe stores. When I'm forced (usually by a girlfriend) to go into one of those miserable places, I like to spread the misery by being mercilessly annoying and complaining that the shoes are not free and that if that's not what they meant, they should have used two words.

Being a Grammar Nazi doesn't mean you can't have fun.

Comment Re:It's pretty simple (Score 2) 516

As for her looks, I neither have an opinion nor interest. Your claim that she is intelligent is, I suppose, technically true by simple dint of her species (i.e., I'm certain she can press the button to get the cheese at least as well as a rat). For "demonstrated abilities to run a [government]", that is SO cute!

Regarding the Constitution, I've heard her mention it, therefore I suppose she believes that one exists. However, her continuous and hilarious displays of ignorance of its contents implies she either still hasn't read it or she tried to read it and didn't understand it.

The best part of all, though, is how she unites the stupid in one proud bunch standing behind her and shaking their fists at all the intelligent thoughts flying over their heads. There are conservatives with working brains and I'm certain they have to facepalm when someone like you jumps up and spouts off like a character in bad sitcom, but I get SUCH a kick out of it.

Keep up the good work!

Comment Re:It's pretty simple (Score 2) 516

Dude, I think a good portion of people who would never vote for Palin without threat of getting "The Moose Treatment" are one of the big reasons she stays in the news.

Honestly, what's so important about getting her emails? To prove some sort of misconduct no one really doubts? To redundantly make her a joke? Hell no. It's the comedy factor. This will be gold for thousands of established comedians and millions of would-be comedians.

Submission + - Bad Science: Coffee as a hallucinogen (

mcgrew writes: "Australian researchers fed subjects a lot of coffee, gave them headphones, and told them that "White Christmas" would play after some static. The subjects heard Bing Crosby and the researchers concluded that coffee caused auditory hallucinations. Sensationalism at its best; obviously the researchers had never heard of hypnoisis."

Comment Re:FALSE !! NOT GUILTY IS NOT INNOCENT !! (Score 1) 243

Due process doesn't presume innocence, but the police don't decide the law, they only enforce it. As the court makes the final decision when it renders the verdict, the presumption of innocence by that court until such time as guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt means that according to the law of the land the accused is presumed innocent until such time as guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Theoretically.

This also means that if the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then according to the law of the land, the presumption of innocence continues. Anyone and everyone can at that point start believing the accused was actually guilty, but according to the law of the land, that doesn't matter one whit.

While there is valid philosophical argument separating the terms "innocent" and "not guilty", the point is moot in the context of criminal law. Your point about law enforcement and prosecution not requiring presumption of innocence is a non-point.

Comment Re:OP is a Mormon with some wacky ideas ... (Score 1) 243

You can and should draw your own conclusions, but IMO this "Hylandr" is a seriously weird individual.

That may be the case, but what does it say about you that you went through all the trouble to build such a complex ad hom about someone who said something so ridiculous in the first place? As an AC, too. Emphasis on the C.

He's nutty, but you're the pot. Um. As in calling the kettle. You get my point. I hope.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anything cut to length will be too short.