Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:Just what we needed (Score 4, Insightful) 271

> "Geez, look at all these tools. I wish I had fewer tools in my toolbox."

No, but I do here people who go in to modify something say "Gosh, I wish there weren't so many different types of connectors, why does this screw have a starburst and this one a rhombus on it?"

Remember that for every Clever Lad who writes this code, an army of dudes has to come through and read and modify it over time.

That's not to speak against it- merely that as the language gets broader, supporting it becomes slower and more expensive.

Comment Re:And ISPs are jacking up rates (Score 2) 147

Neither major party candidate had a great deal of support to give for net neutrality. Hillary was somewhat in favor of it, Trump was opposed and linked it to censorship (specifically the fairness doctrine) and is opposed. Sanders was furiously in favor of the idea, but of course, he didn't get the nomination. I've had a hard time following how it is supported or opposed in Congress, but my general impression is that a few more Democrats normally favor it, versus Republicans. Regardless, I don't think net neutrality will last under Trump, and I think it would have been hurt under Clinton.

The real reason net neutrality is on the ropes is this: the idea was barely discussed by anyone during the election, in comparison to other issues. The companies that stand to profit from net neutrality are electronic media companies, and the companies that stand to profit from its removal are electronic infrastructure companies, and both will continue their fight under the covers. There wasn't much input from the electorate on the topic at all this cycle.

Comment Re:Cry me a river (Score 1) 56

> I just have my mobile browser spoof its user agent string to indicate that it's a desktop one

That works on a shrinking subset of sites. Many of them will poll the display for size, and then serve you their shitty-shit version based on that.

Comment AMP is an absolute pile of shit (Score 1) 56

Google News is dubious as a news source, but when this AMP shit started, I completely stopped using it on mobile. Like most "mobile friendly" websites, it disables pinch to zoom some significant portion of the time, making it shitty. MUCH more importantly, I can't share or use links without copypasta to some note app and manual dicking, as the summary states. It is a total failure, making what was once trivial into a giant pile of shit.

My response was, I stopped using it completely. I'm sure others still use it, or never care about being unable to share it, or actually share the awful amp link. Sometimes I could make it work by asking it to load as desktop, but that's up to the server to respect that, and in any event requires loading everything twice just to claw our way back to minimum internet functionality.

The display is shitty, the URL is shitty, the scrolling is broken, the zooming is shitty. It's total garbage. Fuck AMP in every diseased orifice it has.

Comment Re:Scientists and doctors.. (Score 1) 296

> parents delaying vaccinations in a misguided attempt to reduce risk to their child are achieving the exact opposite outcome

Not really, no. First, as I pointed out, the article itself disagrees with its own headline, by saying that the long term results of delayed and prompt are the same. Second, if that's the only issue, I'm sure some pro-delay person would just do the MMR first or whatever.

> Further the only way you could describe as a "guess" that increasing the length of time a child is not vaccinated will increase their risk of disease is if you don't believe that vaccines are effective.

Absolutely incorrect. A small delay would obviously increase the window during which an unvaccinated child could be exposed to the disease, but if that window takes place during a part of the child's life where he's very unlikely to be exposed in any event (baby versus child, etc), then the effect could easily not show up in the statistics. The fact that the delayed and un-delayed cases end up with the same average effects proves this- if the delay window was when all the viruses showed up, you'd expect to see that in the data. You don't.

> nonmedical exemptions to immunization mandates should be barred

Presumably you mean as the AMA says it: with this standing as a gate to enter public schooling. This is a reasonably contentious issue: the antivax group is still small, and will probably stay that way. Blocking access to schools is taking a very strong stance on it, one which will strongly motivate the opposite team. Note also that this sort of thing always seems to be 100%: a state either allows philosophical exemptions, or they do not. Middle ground solutions, such as having some small percent of schools that allow philosophical exemptions, never even enter the debate. Meanwhile, since much of the antivax stuff is fueled by raw fear, your go-to solution involves mandating stuff (and you probably approve of public service messages that portray those who don't vaccinate as stupid, backwards, or malicious, instead of ignorant, unpersuaded, and scared).

Believe as you like. But remember policy like this can very much end up with headlines like "President Alex Jones".

Comment Re:Scientists and doctors.. (Score 2) 296

The seizures caused as a result of the vaccine- which appear to be the entire reason for that article- are listed as "These seizures do not cause any long-term health effects." The remainder of the article guesses (a pretty reasonable guess, but still a guess) that more cases of diseases will affect some children because they simply won't have their immunity yet, because they won't have received the vaccine. That article is not a compelling reason to avoid delaying vaccines (nor is it a compelling argument to delay vaccines). Additionally, that article is not very persuasive- an antivaxxer will read that article and say "well how about I skip the vaccine and reduce the odds of vaccine-induced seizures, not from 1 in 1500 to 1 in 3000, but to 0?".

> I want people to get vaccinated based off the CDC's recommended timing

And not based on their own personal choice?

I think most of the antivaxxer plague has come from two twinned issues: the general avoidance of discussion of vaccine risk and reward (which in turn spawns a literally endless web of conspiracy theories), and "trolley problem", where getting a vaccine is seen as an action that damages the recipient (and can kill them) some tiny fraction of the time, an an INaction where not getting a vaccine results in a much larger set of damage and death. The problem is that it is phrased as action/inaction, and many parents will suspect or avoid vaccines based on the horror of an action they took harming their child, versus an inaction they took harming their child, with action/inaction being handled totally differently (and not as rationally) as action/action in all of our minds.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic- your article doesn't bring up anything regarding differing outcomes for delayed versus non-delayed, and it's reasonable to assume that most Republican voters like the idea of the delayed schedule (and/or are neutral on the issue)- hence all the candidates basically holding identical positions on the issue. I'll also point out that turning the discussion to "should the vaccines be later or on schedule" at least gets children vaccinated at a higher rate, which is something that is not discussed in the article (except to assume that some of the delayers will miss it- it totally ignores whatever fraction of parents would bail on vaccines completely if offered only as a batch that they suspect is harmful).

Comment Re:Scientists and doctors.. (Score 3, Interesting) 296

Trump's has spoken up in favor of "spreading out" vaccinations. He hasn't spoken against vaccines in general. Last I checked, there wasn't any data showing that "spreading out" vaccinations either helped or hurt a damned thing. I will point this out- every Republican candidate that was asked about the issue last year basically said the same thing as Trump- so whatever his opinion is, it must play super well with Republicans, and also be considered politically safe (and medically safe, probably) by mainstream candidates like Rubio.

The anti-vax crowd does love Trump, however, and they clearly think he will make some vaccine related statement at some point. Assuming he doesn't, some fraction of that will stick with Trump over their antivax, and some others will stick with their antivax over Trump. The most likely result of Trump's presidency, regarding vaccines, is that there's slightly fewer antivaxxers in a few years, compared to today.

Comment Re:If you can afford an iDevice (Score 4, Insightful) 26

I agree. But, there may be a flip side: tor in general seems to believe, probably rightly, that more users increases anonymity for all users. The other piece is that security and privacy software don't have the level of buy-in that they should pretty much anywhere, to the point where merely having privacy and security programs on your computer can be phrased as if it were a bad or sketchy thing- the "something to hide" fallacy, which is played over and over again in media.

So when I see an app become free, my assumption is that they want a large number of installed instances of it. Usually that's for a reason like "microtransactions" or "user monitoring / data brokering and mining". But it also helps all of tor's goals without that.

Anyway, it's worth considering. Certainly, no one who wanted privacy was seriously oscillating over whether to make their multi-hundred dollar purchase cost X+1 dollars, where X > 300, and likely > 500.

Comment Re: Two questions (Score 5, Insightful) 69

I think it was a political stunt to try to soft-ban encryption solutions, by overtly forcing a very prominent privacy oriented company into unlocking their own crypto by pushing in a backdoored update. The end result would be that any company that didn't have a backdoor ready to go for any device or OS that it touched would look like it was standing in opposition to law enforcement, and that this would be considered a legal risk, and therefore, no one would continue making encryption easier and/or more reliable.

Comment Re:truth tables (Score 1) 73

I don't think they "consumed their gains" with it. Kabylake is on the same process, and is almost the same chip, as Skylake. It's an odd feature to get such billing, and it doesn't have to be DMCA protected for Kabylake to play it- it just supports that DRM in hardware. That's not very great, IMO, but I can see why people will like the idea. But anyway, supporting H.265 on chip seems like the sort of thing Intel would do to have a marketable feature, the DRM support is just what makes Netflix happy.

Slashdot Top Deals

I put up my thumb... and it blotted out the planet Earth. -- Neil Armstrong