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 can someone define hate speach? (Score 1) 372

Does "Atheism/Catholicism / choose-your-ism is wrong/ ignorant" count as hate speech?
How about 'we need to take action against 'entity of your choice'?
What about people with demographic xyz are more likely too?

The problem with any law impinging on freedom of speech is that it will inversely be used by those in power to diminish or reduce counter opinion.
Think of all those 'hateful' anti-Obama/ anti-trump people out there?

Should freedom of speech be determined by who is in power or who runs the company?

I think advocating hate speech laws is hateful.

Comment Re:best recaction. (Score 1) 251

interesting. Still it would presumably raise their cost substantially if every phone was running voip through tor and every computer also running tor possible with additional software added for further security. You can of coarse install virtual machines with fake hardware ID's that would help and hard drive encryption with 2 passwords 1 that decrypts 1 that auto deletes . A lot of creativity and energy could be expended to help shore up infrastructure from intrusion if there was enough demand. Of coarse you still have the 'we require you to give us the key' type laws, but that is why you build a booby trapped house with keys that are known only to the people communicating.

Comment Re:better yet ... (Score 1) 613

not really, once elected the president would still need to be impeached to be removed. If you want to make it less inbred , you could easily require the state legislatures to choose the president from among sitting governors or sitting representatives. The original plan for the constitution was that the state legislatures picked the electoral college who elected the president with no popular vote for president of any kind. The point is to keep control and influence at the local level rather then needing national campaigns and fights.

Comment Re:better yet ... (Score 1) 613

yes, but the point is you take the influence away from national media and big money and instead force the effort to be exerted across 50 states. You have to convince a lot more people you are right to push you particular cause because now it is the elected congressmen from each state that select the president.
Just a historical note. When the constitution was written the original thought was that the legislature of each state would select the electoral college and not put the presidential race to a vote at all, which has pretty much the same effect as what I was suggesting. People are no longer voting for a remote office long away and hoping it will change their lives and laws. Instead they are voting for people who they may actually meet and talk to , who live in their state and expecting those people to represent their interests. They are more invested and have more influence in the local election and the local election becomes more important because it eventually decides who the president is. This is a republic not a democracy ;)

Comment Nice to see it confirmed. (Score 1) 228

Religious folks have been claiming for years that they help people feel more loved. That prayer can help you feel better and to form a bond with god. Also, they claim has been made for many years that part of the reason we experience that feeling is because we were created for relationship with God.

So nice to see some scientific confirmation that praying and loving feel good.

Comment better yet ... (Score 2) 613

we should eliminate the popular vote for president. The president should be elected by the congress from it's seating members. That way the goverment gets things done and the elections people focus on are the local ones they have more influence over.

Comment Re:Problem ... Faith (Score 2) 386

The problem is a question of faith? What justifies faith. What type of evidence is enough to give one faith. Faith is 'the belief in things not yet observed' a conjecture based on available evidence.

I find it ironic, that some have faith in cryogenics given the evidence for any possible success is certainly no better and in many ways much less then the evidence for a omnipotent creator who will resurrect your body at a future date.

Comment unfortunate. (Score 1) 212

Once, news agencies at least pretended to be interested in the facts. However, now profit and ratings are more important then responsible journalism. Now the news companies must compete with twitter and blogs. Of course there used to be a lot more chance of monetary loss for inaccurately reporting facts, but most of that was gutted in court because the big networks tried to use it to shut down bloggers. Maybe it is time to bring some of it back.

Feeling old that I remember the days when networks were expected to give equal voice to opposing opinion if they presented anything other then plain facts.

Comment unfortunately have to give something up. (Score 1) 235

I'd like to see a presidential candidate that was :
Tech Savvy.
Pro-small business anti-multinational conglomerate.
Pro-states rights
Pro-immigration and Pro-immigrant.
Anti-torcher , Anti-war. Pro-military, pro-police, pro-civil rights, pro-black lives matter.
Not Anti-Muslim just anti-terrorist.
And willing to stop shoving all kinds of liberals or conservative agenda's down the throats of people who don't want them.

But the democrats didn't give me that one nor the republicans so I had to pick someone less then optimal. The internet won't be destroyed, maybe less useful, or useful in different ways. Still a few of the things on that list ranked as more important then net neutrality to me.

Comment The Great Challenge (Score 1) 137

Let me first provide a bit of context. I'm no fan of fossil fuels or being dependent on them. Even IF they are not messing up the atmosphere as some are apt to claim, they are not a renewable resource and sooner or later we are going to run out of them , how much later again a point of debate but nobody debates it will happen. To me it make sense to find a way to do something better 'just in case' most the majority of scientist who study climate happen to be correct AND because why be dependent on a limited resource that you might be able to use in other ways if you don't have to.

That being said, all these decisions come with real human costs. One example is that the typical cap and spend strategies many people support may the ability to raise fertilizes prices to a level that will cause mass starvation in impoverished countries ( a lot of fertilizer is from natural gas a process that produces C02).

Other 'green' strategies are bound to fall square on the shoulders of consumers as well, replacing power plants creating new infrastructure , replacing vehicles , all cost money ( and energy ) and resources. The complexity of the problem of breaking global dependence on fossil fuels in a carbon negative way may be one of the greatest challenges to human engineering.

So for those who may be more able then myself:
Where are the conversion kits so that we can convert our exist vehicles to electric ?
Where is the way of fast charging or exchanging batteries so we can repower these vehicles in minutes rather then hours?
Where are the affordable batteries / solar panels/ green power alternative or any other technology that can be paid for by the average builder without raising the prices of homes
out of reach for most people ?

We need these things to be as affordable and functionally equivalent to the technology they replace or we can expect great resistance in widespread adoption.

All of this assumes of coarse it is possible to continue or modern technological lifestyle in a carbon neutral fashion. Does we currently expend more power then we are able to take in from the sun without killing the plants?

Comment baseline? (Score 1) 158

so, how many mutations per day/year does the average non smoker accumulate in the same tissues?
aka How far is this from the baseline ?
Increased risk would after all be a function of the difference between the baseline mutations and the change caused by the factor being studied. I suspect the assumption that NO mutation occurs without tobacco would be a serious error, or at least require some serious proof.

Comment Re:Annodize iron? (Score 1) 117

The article says the trick to this battery is to anodize the components in a 'household chemical' but it doesn't say which one. They type and strength of the oxide formed would of coarse be quite different depending on which chemical. If I'm not mistaken.

The definition of anodize you used seems to be consistent on the internet but ammonization can be done with a specific chemical. I just want to know which one. Normally you would get iron oxide, but you might not if the metal was immersed in something else.

Slashdot Top Deals

365 Days of drinking Lo-Cal beer. = 1 Lite-year