Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment What's undignified about rats? (Score 5, Informative) 429

"Humane or not, what is so especially "undignified" about rats? What makes them worse, than, for example, cats, deer or wild horses?"

The author of the summary has obviously never had a rat infestation. They can swim, dig several feet down, chew through concrete, plastic, wood, drywall, and otherwise go to amazing destructive measures to get to a heat or food source. Unlike mice, keeping your food in the cupboard or Tupperware containers is useless as they chew right through them, and destroy your home's foundation while they are at it. No, rats are not at all like wild horses, cats, or deer. Rats are a special kind of hell.

If you need an ecological reason. The destructive urban rats are an invasive species, not native to North America. We brought them here - and I for one applaud every effort to get rid of them.

Comment Re:Yes. (Score 1) 143

I'm not sure why "uses a computer" necessitates a new class. It seems to me that your argument applies to proof by exhaustion whether done by hand or computer. Also it is not unheard of to try to reach simpler proofs after constructing a complex one - the investigation doesn't have to stop here, but now we know the answer.

Comment Re: This may sound harsh... (Score 1) 379

That's not exclusively true. Certainly telling people you're having suicidal thoughts is a cry for help or a cry for attention, but if it's a cry for help and you don't get it you might follow through. Unfortunately I have personal experience not taking someone's suicide claims seriously enough. I wouldn't take that chance again.

Comment Re:We got rid of flash and applets (Score 1) 118

That's somewhat revisionist. IE 3-6 when they were released were much more standards compliant than other browsers, particularly Netscape Navigator. (Layer tags, seriously?) IE was the first browser to fully comply with CSS1. The problem was that once IE6 was out they had so far outpaced their competitors (and abused their monopoly position) that there was no more competition, and since Microsoft was not a web company and had no interest in seeing the web advance, they did nothing for years. Of course years later when Firefox and eventually Chrome came out, IE was horribly outdated - and then when MS tried to make up for lost time with IE7 they failed miserably. That was a browser that was not standards compliant at release. IE8 was better, with very good CSS 2.1 compliance, but still fairly horrible DOM compliance and none of the CSS 3 stuff everyone else already had. 9, 10, 11, Edge are all better, but they still suffer from too long of a delay between releases and customers holding on to old versions for too long.

Comment Re:That's OK (Score 1) 85

It seems unlikely. Most Canadian's are not paying attention to his anti-science policies, the money being thrown away fighting equality for Muslims, or any of the rest of the nonsense. They'll vote blue because they've always voted blue and because "lower taxes = good". The left is split down the middle and I predict yet another conservative minority.

I could be wrong, Alberta noticed when their one industry economy started tanking; and the NDP wave there might be enough to turn the tides to a short lived NDP minority.

Any sort of sane or stable government doesn't stand a chance.

Comment Re:Why wait? (Score 1) 40

Presumably so that people running servers who are not up in the know about cipher suites, now finally have some incentive to take a look (because they ignored earlier security reports - they didn't have any 'impact'). Once they find out they're using RC4 they need to figure out how to pick different ciphers, and maybe upgrade their web server and ssl library. Maybe it's far fetched, but browser makers are pretty conservative about 'breaking the web' for anyone.

Comment Re:Guess what? (Score 4, Interesting) 301

This is a viewpoint that's very vocal but overstated. For a lot of people monogamy is secure, comfortable, and satisfies their sexual needs - particularly when the partners communicate openly about sex.

Incidentally a relationship is between two people, not society at large; if you feel you need to have sex with other people be up front about it, maybe your potential partner will be game, maybe they won't, but at least it saves the messy lying and trust violation.

Comment Re:Spies are sneaky (Score 2, Insightful) 202

No, it would be more detrimental to their efforts if they stopped king neckbeard from posting than if they allow him to continue when the general populous doesn't care or considers him paranoid. Kinda like how CSIS monitors all the file upload sites but doesn't report people for copyright infringement (they talked about having to sift through episodes of glee).

Incidentally these silly little freedoms, to talk in a voice that isn't heard, to buy and share entertainment, and the ability to choose a Jesus fish or flying spaghetti monster for their back bumper is all most 'free world' citizens care about.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Irrigation of the land with sewater desalinated by fusion power is ancient. It's called 'rain'." -- Michael McClary, in alt.fusion

Working...