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:Want to save your hearing? (Score 1) 75

Have a look at Etymotic plugs. I've used ER20s (looks like they are called 'Ety Plugs', now) at clubs and events for years. They do what they say - drop the volume without distortion. I can have conversations while wearing them that would have been a muted mess with the more usual foam earplugs. They aren't bad for long stays in server rooms, either.

If you attend loud events with any regularity, and want to _keep_ being able to enjoy those events for years to come, protect your hearing.

Caveat - no association with the company, just a satisfied customer.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 3, Insightful) 76

That 'too much government regulation is bad' is true does not mean that government regulation is bad.

If government regulation is applied and ends up doing the "exact opposite" of what was intended, then the only solution is not "ever increasing and Draconian modifications".

On the other hand, THIS IS A FUCKING VIDEO GAME why the FUCK do we need government involved?

It's strange. I would think that one of the few places where government unarguably has a role is in mediating the interaction of individuals, especially with respect to trade. Whether or not that's for something you think is important, or just "A FUCKING VIDEO GAME".

A company produced and sold a product that a considerable number of those who purchased it found to be substantially different to what they thought they were buying. Maybe some jumped on the bandwagon. Maybe some fooled themselves. That happens with a lot of games. This was on a different scale.

Industry self-regulation has failed to prevent this and in failing to punish it has increased the chance of it happening again. Fail for self-regulation. I'm not sure how _less_ regulation, as you seem to think more appropriate, is going to help. Bad or excessive government regulation may make things worse, but there are alternatives to 'bad' and 'excessive' despite your implication to the contrary.

Oh, and to tun your argument on it's head - THIS IS [THE] FUCKING VIDEO GAME [INDUSTRY], if it's so meaningless/trivial, why are you involved?

Comment Re:eating less (Score 1) 256

I don't mean to criticise, but at 6-8 hours you are pretty much in 'maintenance mode'. That's just about enough to stave off the worst of the chronic problems that arise from our sedentary lifestyles and will burn some calories, but as you note, not enough to make a significant difference to weight. For me, the exercise is more about managing my mental state and that makes it easier to maintain a healthy diet.

The University of QLD conducted a study that concluded that the WHO recommendations for exercise were about 5 times too small. Their recommendation ends up being in line with your current levels (6-8 hours).

It's hard to find time to fit more in - especially when you need a solid block of time for some exercises (esp. cardio) to be effective. Worse, as you get better at it, the same level/amount of exercise is less beneficial. You become more efficient. You then have to increase the duration or intensity. Or keep switching exercise around.

I find that I don't really see any benefit from exercise until I'm over 4 sessions of 1.5-2 hours a week. 3-4 sessions and I plateau. Less and I regress - my mental state is harder to maintain, cravings and appetite are harder to control.

I apologise if I seem to be preaching. I sympathise with your situation and struggle to 'exercise enough' myself and so may be projecting. If you can find a way to increase it (or increase the intensity), you may find that you start to see benefits beyond just burning calories.

Comment Re:Always on the cards (Score 1) 251

I'm from Australia and faced a similar decision a couple of years back when similar laws were passed.

My criteria included a lack of logging of user activity. It's not enough (I believe), to find a provider in what is nominally a neutral country. Nor to find a provider that claims that they will keep your data private. If the data exists, it _will_ be available.

Private Internet Access doesn't keep user activity logs. They do keep some records, such as payment information. This has, reportedly, been tested with respect to enquiries by the FBI for example. They have a decent number of end points. They've pulled out of countries where they would have been compelled to keep records.

Caveat - no association with PIA, just a satisfied customer for the last ~2 years

Comment Re:I don't know why IBM got the contract (Score 1) 60

It looks like IBM won wrt to the QLD Health Dept. payroll debacle and there is talk about sacking the bureaucrats involved.

However, part of the point of hiring external contractors for this sort of thing is to take advantage of their expertise. If the government failed to 'properly spec' the system, then either IBM failed to provide knowledge, guidance or push-back on a poor design. They they chose to proceed with a design they knew wouldn't work (and if they didn't know, then they deserve even greater criticism). They chose dollars of reputation and deserve some of the blame for the failure and are, rightly I think, being excluded from future consideration.

Comment Re:cost / benefit (Score 2) 69

Do you believe that Google has the data and competence to analyse that data to identify patterns that can distinguish (with high confidence) the difference between a state actor and a hacking/private group?

If so, then Google has either deliberately lied or ... what?

Your argument then seems to be that Google has lied to some users (either about an attack existing at all, or about the source of an attack) to ingratiate themselves with the Democrats. I'm not from the US, so I might be missing something, but that sounds ridiculous. Sure, some members of Google (maybe even most) vote a particular way, so you may be able to argue that they favour one party, and maybe their personal political leanings might inform or influence corporate policy (the "agenda" as you ominously call it) but how is _this_ evidence of that?

Sounds like confirmation bias on your part (senior Google employees/owners favour Democrats, therefore all of Google's actions are designed to help that party).

There are a number of (non-political) reasons that Google might inform users of the possibility of state-sponsored attacks. Your suggestion that this might be politically motivated is, frankly, silly.

Submission + - U.S. Navy's High-Tech ship loses power in Panama canal (usni.org)

bsharma writes: USS Zumwalt suffered engine failure and collided with lock walls while transiting the Panama Canal. The ship lost propulsion in its port shaft during the transit and the crew saw water intrusion in two of the four bearings that connect to Zumwalt’s port and starboard Advanced Induction Motors (AIMs) to the drive shafts, a defense official told USNI News on Tuesday. The AIMs are the massive electrical motors that are driven by the ship’s gas turbines and in turn electrically power the ship’s systems and drive the shafts.

Submission + - WordPress auto-update server had flaw allowing persistent backdoors in websites (theregister.co.uk)

mask.of.sanity writes: Up to a quarter of all websites on the internet could have been breached through a since-patched vulnerability that allowed WordPress' core update server to be compromised. The shuttered remote code execution flaw was found in a php webhook within api.wordpress.org that allows developers to supply a hashing algorithm of their choice to verify code updates are legitimate.

Submission + - SPAM: Satellite Abandoned In 1967 Mysteriously Comes Back Online

schwit1 writes: An American satellite abandoned in 1967 suddenly came back online and began transmitting again for the first time in 50 years.

Amateur astronomers first suspected that they’d found the satellite in 2013, but needed years to confirm that it was still occasionally transmitting. The satellite, dubbed LES1, was built by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and launched into space in 1965.

A mistake in the satellite’s circuitry caused it to never leave its circular orbit, and it eventually stop transmitting in 1967. The satellite’s signal now fluctuates widely in strength, meaning that it’s likely only transmitting when its solar panels are in direct sunlight. Scientists expect that the satellite’s onboard batteries have disintegrated.

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Regulation (Score 5, Insightful) 333

Which is cheaper;
a) testing a competitor's product and discovering that they are using a cheaper ingredient, then publicising same and defending claims in court/media whilst continuing to use authentic ingredients
OR
b) testing a competitor's product and discovering that they are using a cheaper ingredient and switching your manufacturing to the same ingredient and continuing to compete based on who has the best celebrity endorsement.

Hoping that competitors will spend money monitoring each other ignores a wealth of examples of collusion, kickbacks, price-fixing etc. and has the same sort of simplistic assumptions that a lot of 'free market will solve X' examples exhibit. Too much regulation is bad. That doesn't mean regulation is bad.

Submission + - New data about the parasite worm causing "river blindness" published

rahultyagi writes: "River blindness" and Onchocerciasis are diseases of tropical countries in Africa and South America that are caused by the tiny roundworm O. volvulus. Millions of people in these countries carry this worm, with some of the symptoms being devastating impact on quality of life, health and economy in these poor and developing countries. Large scale drug administration has shown promise over last few decades but new drugs are always in demand because of possibility of development of drug resistance. Two new papers in "Nature Microbiology" describe the genome sequence and the genomic diversity that existed before current drugs modified the genomic landscape. This data will hopefully accelerate the demise of this terrible affliction.

Submission + - Parliamentary committee can summon Snowden to testify in Germany

multi io writes: The German Federal court of Justice (BGH), the highest court in the country in all matters of ordinary (non-constitutional) law, has ruled that the parliamentary committee investigating the NSA spying scandal may summon Edward Snowden to testify in Germany as a key witness in the case. If the committee decides (with a 25% minority, which seems secure) to go ahead with this, the government must allow Snowden to enter the country and provide appropriate protection against his extradition to the US.

Comment Re: I'm suspicious (Score 1) 119

I'm not from the US. I am commenting on the GP's (your?) characterisation of people who voted for Trump as doing so for sexist reasons (and please understand I'm in no way claiming a better class of politician in Australia - they are much the same corrupt oligarchs as everywhere else).

There were many reasons to reject Clinton, and yes, there are many reasons to reject Trump. Given how close the final vote was, it looks like they were pretty hard to decide between. It's horrifying that this election seemed to be less about which was the better candidate, and who was the least-worst.

However, the original statement that I object to is that the people who voted for Trump and against Clinton did so because she was a woman. No doubt some did. The majority who voted against her did so because the value they attach to certain things is a little different to the same values you place on those same things. Maybe that's the result of the monkey-brain cutting members of the tribe some slack, and forgiving in our 'friends' the flaws we'll abhor in those outside the tribe. Maybe it's just that Person A has to reluctantly accept a lying, corrupt, narcissist who barely represents their views, because the other party is also a lying, corrupt narcissist but is even further from representing their views.

Just as with Brexit, there's a disjoint in analysis that is missing a significant disaffection in the voting public. We're seeing similar things, here, in voting behaviour although it's more diffuse as a result of our preferential voting and different party dynamic.

If you want to understand what is going on, to actually understand what is driving a large enough portion of the population that it's distorting polls then you need to stop with the mischaracterisation and easy name-calling.

Some Trump voters might well be sexist. That may even have influenced their voting choice. But far, far more voted that way for reasons the GP glosses over with a handwave and implied sexism.

Slashdot Top Deals

The UNIX philosophy basically involves giving you enough rope to hang yourself. And then a couple of feet more, just to be sure.

Working...