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:Reduced OS for short term gains. (Score 1) 55

In Android at least, only one application can be running at the same time (no background processing unless you program a service for your app)

Bollocks.

And the rest of what you say has nothing to do with Android or ChromeOS. You can have access to root in both. Android devices generally have it disabled but it can be enabled - of course, even CyanogenMod discourages root access these days, as it shouldn't be necessary. ChromeOS? Off by default, but every ChromeBook let's you reconfigure ChromeOS to allow root if you desperately want it. As for "Spyware", it's entirely up to you whether you use Google's services or not.

And none of your objections have anything to do with the original point. You're complaining about the UI disabling certain features. The underlying operating system has those features. And, frankly, easy access to root was something that Windows 95 gave you by default that NT made a little harder to get...

Comment Re:Crucial question (Score 2) 55

What's interesting about it? Netbook/Tablet hybrids are widely available already! Most of them come with Windows 10, but you can install anything you like on them.

But, FWIW, Chromebooks generally have a feature, sometimes implemented in hardware, sometimes in software, that disables the TPM module so you can either access the operating system as a developer, or wipe the OS completely and put on a more usual desktop system.

Comment Re:Reduced OS for short term gains. (Score 1) 55

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but both Android and ChromeOS (presumably meaning the OS under discussion here too) are full blown modern operating systems with networking, permissions, memory protection, etc. They are both on a par with Unix in terms of features. They both, however, have user interfaces that block user access to certain features of the operating system.

This is nothing like the jump from 95 to NT.

Comment Re:And IMDB cares about this *why*, exactly? (Score 1) 294

No reason those jobs have be in Santa Monica though. Or anywhere else in CA. Move them to Seattle like the rest of the company.

Maybe this Google query will give you a hint as to why they have an office in Santa Monica.

Hint: It isn't because top networking specialists and PHP programmers are best found in Los Angeles.

Comment Re:No they aren't denying it (Score 1) 641

Additionally, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that climate change deniers skew more religious than climate change acceptors.

What's more, I vaguely recall reading some actual religious arguments against anthropogenic climate change. Something vaguely like:

[1] "The climate is not changing significantly enough to harm humanity, because God would not let that happen"

and/or

[2] "Only God is powerful enough to change the climate".

And then there's the US's ridiculous Rapture cult, who would WELCOME an Extinction Level Event because they're convinced they'd be Raptured. Don't even get me started on THAT crowd.

Comment Workaround (Score 1) 220

Apart from the obvious-but-snarky ("Install Linux! hoho I'm so clever!"), you can indefinitely postpone all Windows updates on all versions of Windows 10 by stopping (and disabling if you find a way) the Windows Update service.

Of course, you lose the security updates if you do that too. Whether that's massively important to you depends on how often you run executables downloaded from the Internet, and what TCP/IP services you run on your computer.

Obviously "No security updates" is a bad thing, but if Windows insists on installing an update that actually breaks your PC in some way, no security updates might be the better of two evils, especially if you don't use IE or Edge, run any externally accessible services, and don't run every executable you download from the Internet.

Comment Re:One white elephant for sale. (Score 1) 65

I don't think either Yahoo or Twitter has to lose money, but the path to profitability is a horrible one: they're both heavily overstaffed for what they do. Twitter in particular, IIRC, has thousands of employees, managing what's actually a fairly simple product. You could reduce the headcount to well under a hundred people.

In that respect, being bought out is a preferable solution. The newly created division can set about reorganizing itself as a small focused team on the product at hand, while much of the remaining staff can be absorbed into the larger company over time. There'd still be redundancies, but they wouldn't be anything like as bad.

Comment Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score 1) 851

Trump is Bush with more bankruptcies, less military service, and no discernible interest in anything about the job other than power.

And, if anything, you're still being unfair to Bush. Bush! Probably the worst President since Nixon. And pretty much any comparison of him to Trump makes him look like a peace loving world statesman.

I would vote for Bush over Trump in a heartbeat. People ask why I'm prepared to vote for Clinton, given I dislike her politics so much, and there's your reason.

Comment "an unmanned exploration mission by 2018" (Score 3, Insightful) 134

"an unmanned exploration mission by 2018"

It's too bad no one thought of that 40 years ago. We could have had an unmanned exploration mission on Mars back in 1976 or so.

Oh. Wait. Viking landed on Mars in 1976, didn't it.

40 F'ing years ago. Are we maybe kind of done with the exploratory crap, and ready to send people yet?

Let's see... we went from the first autogyro to landing on the moon in 40 years. Now it looks like we've moved from an unmanned landing on Mars ... to Yet Another Unmanned Landing On Mars(tm) over the last 40 years.

Good job, dudes.

Comment Re:not profitable (Score 4, Informative) 222

Leaving aside the "OH NOES! TAXES!" BS, the statement you quote never suggests that supplying Internet access is "charitable" or "unprofitable". It says "the majority of the area does not present enough profitability to attract the private-sector investment", not "the majority of the area does not present profit to attract the private-sector investment".

The private sector generally doesn't invest in projects to make small amounts of profit, especially if they're expensive. There are many, many, examples of projects that would more than pay for themselves that you'll never see the private sector take an interest in, because the promise of a 10% return here for a medium risk is unattractive compared to the promise of 100% there, for little or no risk.

As for taxes, I personally like paying taxes. As a wise man once said, in return I get civilization.

Comment Re:They don't answer the only question we care abo (Score 4, Informative) 175

When a cell divides, the methyl groups are only on the original strand; the new complimentary strand doesn't have any. The methylation signal has to be actively transcribed from one strand to another; an enzyme runs up the DNA feeling for methylated cytosine residues. When it finds some, it starts methylating any cytosine residues that might be nearby on the opposite strand, to make sure the troublesome regions all stay commented out. That's why it's heritable.

The methylation inactivation is heritable. The issue, in this case, was erroneous activation or switching of cells to modify protein production.

I suspect that the mechanism involved (they don't say) in the repair of the genes which end up going back to normal is related to the production of O6-methyl-transferase via the MGMT complex sites on the long arm of c21 -- the same thing that results in chemo-resistance to cancers, such as pancreatic cancer or glioblastoma, when combined with the appropriate mutation of the p53 gene on c17.

I think as long as it doesn't involve a long term mutation of a cancer related gene, such that it effect the germ cells, it's not a problem. Since you tend to come pre-packed with all the germ cells you are ever going to have in your lifetime, then the issue will be smoking by pregnant women, and all other damage that results in disease will only be self-inflicted diseases, rather than heritable.

Which still means they've failed to answer the question of whether or not it's heritable, because they've failed to discuss whether or not it impacts germ cells (arguably unlikely, but it'd be nice to have an answer, particularly when making decisions on how and when to regulate smoking, or minimally, smoking in public).

Slashdot Top Deals

If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four tellers?

Working...