Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Re:That's too bad.... (Score 1) 125

A lot of the music in the charts is horrible. However, there's also loads of bands making great music right now. For every 10 crap songs I hear, there's also that one band that suddenly pops up with a great song. Twenty One Pilots recently.

99% of everything is crap. But with hindsight we forget Rick Astley and... well, maybe not. But we overcame Wham. And Vanilla Ice. And the lambada.

Comment Re:how about you? (Score 1) 579

If you have a job and a mortage and only standard financial issues, spending 30 bucks is more than enough effort. If you have an "interesting" financial situation, it might be wise to spend some money.

A co-worker had a wife with a trustfund in another country. As it turns out, due to the laws being what they are she's not liable for taxes in *either* country. They spent about 1000 euro and in exchange saved around 15000 in taxes. Each year.

I recently changed my "company" from "self employed" to "limited liability". Somehow, this gives me a 100000 euro waiver on my income that I don't have to pay income tax over (but I have to pay myself income that is then taxed, over 15 years). That 1800 euro was well spent because what would have been 50% tax over a lump sum is now 38% tax over that amount divided by 15. Saves me 12000 euro in taxes in total and a bit less in interest.

Comment Re:Next the gov't decides YOU have too much money. (Score 1) 579

It may be true that no other company had done this. But I don't know whether that can qualify as anti-competitiveness since they'd have to show other companies being denied such a blessing.

That won't be hard - how many companies had to pay 0.005% tax? Oh, noone except Apple. How many would have wanted this had they been told it was possible? All of them. Microsoft is in Ireland too, and not for the scenery. The fact they didn't get this ruling is quite telling.

Comment Re:take (Score 1) 367

What will happen is that the most obvious diseases will be targeted, leading to a whole slew of initial successes and then quite a long stall as it turns out that the remainder of what makes us, us, is extremely complex, interacts with itself in loads of unexpected ways and generally is still very poorly understood. Junk dna, methylization, gut bacteria, and the recent discovery of even more inhabitants in the gut, bacteriofages, that interact with everything as well, all show that there is still a whole world out there we know nothing about.

Much more attainable and more sensible too is prediagnostic screening of embryos. Just remove the ones with the most obvious diseases and you're good to go with none of the risks attached to "templated DNA".

Comment Re:I'd consider it (Score 1) 367

I've checked and the gene is "autosomal dominant" so if your spouse does not have the gene, all you need to do is make sure you use IVF and select the right embryo(s). Googling "ivf and embryo testing for cancer" immediately brought up loads of clinics that provide this, like http://www.fertility-docs.com/...

So if you find the right partner who agrees with you on this, it's not hard to have genetic screening *right now*. No need for a vasectomy at all.

Comment Re: Um, baloney (Score 1) 112

I know it's not done to actually look at the article in question, but you might have checked hackerrank.com and seen that it is a very simple testing site, with questions ranging from the laughably easy to the ridiculously obstruse, and that you can just google every answer. I spent an hour answering questions and they could really use a lot of improvement.

My take? This whole press release was designed to get attention for the site. No need to actually take it serious enough to think about it. If you want to have a ranking that means something, ignore hackerrank and start contributing on stackoverflow.com.

Comment Re: Lighten up (Score 4, Insightful) 532

The alternative is that the peer-reviewed paper describes a new phenomenon which cannot AT THIS TIME be explained easily by applying the basic laws of physics.

That doesn't mean the basic laws of physics are wrong, it may just mean that there is something going on we cannot easily detect or haven't considered looking for, that if detected would explain the whole thing. Or some of the basic laws of physics have loopholes that are exploited in this instance. Or they need refinement.

As an example, the motion of planets is explained by Newton based on basic laws of physics. However, until Einstein refined the whole explanation a bit with his theory of relativity, we had unexplained deviations between theory and practice - like we have now.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 564

The US government is fine with complaining to EU countries that they shouldn't behave like tax havens, but it protests when the EU decides that they shouldn't. I suppose they wanted both the earnings to stay in the US, and not go to the EU at the same time.

I think Tim Cook theatened to shut down someone's iPhone.

Slashdot Top Deals

RADIO SHACK LEVEL II BASIC READY >_

Working...