Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:Options (Score 1) 493

Agreed. The problem is simply due to bugs in the update client.

I had to resort to WSUS offline update to fix the issue (after trying all the official methods at length). I did not really want to use unofficial tools, but given that nothing else worked and WSUS offline update was recommended in several places (and because I was in fuck it-mode), I chose to use it anyway.

It worked flawlessly and after that, the Windows Update client functioned as it should again.

Comment Re:This is awesome (Score 1) 103

There's a company working on exactly that.

I can't remember where, but I think I saw a hands-on review that said that it actually works really well.
I found it slightly hard to believe, given that raising the detail after you've moved focus to another place (especially with saccades) is going to have some delay.

Comment Melodrama (Score 5, Informative) 397

The Libreboot page is filled with shitloads of rancor concerning the GNU project and the FSF (which, by its victimized tone, I'm afraid to say doesn't make the maintainer's side of the story more trustworthy).
I can easily see why the FSF isn't sorry to see her go. They're probably cutting all ties with the project just to minimize the amount of further drama.

Read it and cringe:
- https://libreboot.org/why-not-...
- https://libreboot.org/gnu-insu...

She even talks about herself in the third person, even though it's obvious to everybody that she is the one writing it.

Comment Re:Good for China (Score 1) 117

the sea level rises for everybody equally, no matter which country is at fault.

This is not true, interestingly.

The large ice masses have a gravitational pull that influences the sea level around them, which leads to quite wildly varying effects on sea levels when they melt; in some places the sea level actually drops as a result of the ice masses melting:
- http://sealevelstudy.org/sea-c...
- http://harvardmagazine.com/201...

Comment Re:Over/under: Invasion of sovereign nation or tru (Score 3, Insightful) 821

1. What the DNC 'was up to' pales in comparison to what the NSA was up to.
Actually, the DNC didn't do that much at all. That part of it was and is a tempest in a teapot.

2. Besides that, Russia's hacking is malicious, whereas Snowden's revelations are clearly well-intended. So yes, you can be against Russia's hacking and for Edward Snowden.

Comment Re:I hope those in power learned (Score 1) 442


The biggest mistake of the past decades was validating the opinion of 'the man in the street' as if it was authorative or equivalent to that of experts in the field. Everybody and his dog now somehow thinks that just because they can open their mouth and breathe they should be listened to in everything.

Comment Re:Forget BB, the plethora of ad-serving sites... (Score 1) 147

I highly recommend DNS based blocking in your router. All smartphones and tablets using your network will also be rid of 99% of all that crap.

There's a package in OpenWRT (not in the main repository, though) that updates blocklists on a schedule (the scripts are very straightforward and DIYable, but it's nice to have a click and go solution):

The only downside is that making (temporary) exceptions is not really an option.

Comment Re: Good then bad then good (Score 2) 172

And this is how total misunderstanding of nutritional science spreads.

Correlation does not equal causation and 'all major medical associations' do not disagree with me on this.
There are plenty of studies that did not find any correlation or only a very very weak one between saturated fat and heart disease. Even if a correlation is found, it still does not prove causation.

Comment Re:Good then bad then good (Score 2) 172

Everything you eat can have good and bad effects. That a new good or bad effect to some particular food may be discovered in the future does not invalidate those discovered previously.

I'm sorry, but this is the wrong explanation. The right explanation is that doing nutritional research is hard and that nutritional claims are often not well-supported.

There was never enough proof to say "Fat is bad for you", nor is there currently enough proof to say that "Saturated fat is bad for you". Besides being instantly suspect by being ridiculously simplistic, such claims are almost exclusively based on correlations or effects in high-risk groups. But people really want nutritional advice, so somebody is going to give it to them, citing some paper that suggests some effect.

Don't get me wrong: There are some things where the causal relation between it and a negative health effect is known, but in nutritional advice that generally is not the case.

Slashdot Top Deals

Backed up the system lately?