Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Google should just block Australia (Score 1) 9

Google has put up with worse I'm afraid.

Unfortunately the real power here lies with Rupert "Fucking" Murdoch. Much to the chargrin of News Corps minority shareholders, the Australian newspaper doesn't make a profit and serves as nothing more than a funnel to inject the sort of bad ideas that have turned american politics into the garbage fire it is, into australian politics too. And if he doesn't like it, the conservatives will bow, and do as the master commands.

I wish the old vampire would just have a coronary and leave democracy alone.

Comment Re:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proo (Score 1) 244

Seems that the fix for that would be to ban intent as a criteria to set damages. I.e make all infringements attract the same penalty which should fall between the two extremes.

No, that wouldn't be good. Normal damages for unintentional infringement shouldn't be much higher than licensing fees, otherwise you impose an additional cost on innovation -- requiring people to scour the database searching for any patent that might possibly apply. Equally, it's important that intentional infringement receive higher damages, else there's no reason ever to bother with licensing.

What we really need is fewer, better patents, written in a more useable way. What gums up the works is all of the patents on obvious inventions that are highly likely to be independently reinvented by anyone competent who looks at the a given problem.

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 1) 393

To tell the truth, I think that the "Universe is a simulation" is just the latest creationist effort. In a simulation, dinosaurs can be put in the ground just for fun, bioogical relations are just that way because the great simulator in the sky wants them that way, and the apparent age of the universe, speed of light, and radioactivity are all 100 percent arbitrary.

So if the universe is a simulation, there is no reason why the Abrahamic God didn't create it in October 4004 b.c.e. as determined by Usher so it is now science, and must be taught in the nation's classrooms. The Bible is now the scientific description of a scientific simulation program.

The simulated universe conjecture doesn't lend anything new to the believers of the supernatural that they don't already have.

What does God need with a starship (or simulation)?

If existing, it could do all that without a simulation. So any evidence for a simulation would be evidence against it being a supreme being.

And it would go against the tenets of free will. Granted, some flavors of godbothering believe in predestination, but most claim there's free will, including creationists.

Comment Re:Proof (Score 1) 393

She's demanding that idiots stop saying we might be living in a simulation, without any proof.

You don't need proof. That's not how science work. You should have evidence supporting the conjecture.
And we have that. As an example, an original universe hypothesis doesn't have any guesses for why quantum mechanics operate with probabilities and collapsing the waveform. A simulated universe does: You don't have to keep track of every particle but can wait until it is observed.

There's no compelling reason why an original universe hypothesis should be the null hypothesis. It's requires more complexity, because you can only simulate something with less complexity than you have, which makes an original universe the most complex possibility.
Add to that that you can have an unthinkably high number of simulated universes running under a single original universe, and many of these can also have simulated universes, until you reach a complexity that's low enough that you can't run a simulation in it. The mediocrity principle then dictates that the null hypothesis should be that we belong to one of the many, and not the unique one.

It is thus the original universe hypothesis that is an extraordinary claim that needs to be backed with extraordinary evidence. Not the other way around.

Comment Re:Finally, I can switch to Gnome! (Score 4, Interesting) 110

Actually, I have, and would rather use Motif thatn GNOME.

I do use mwm. It works great. They haven't broken things like being able to paste into a window without changing z-order.
I also use a hammer that isn't painted a uniform color and doesn't play El Condor Pasa when I hit something.
It's not about bells and whistles, it's about productivity.

GNOME

GNOME 3.24 Released (softpedia.com) 110

prisoninmate quotes a report from Softpedia: GNOME 3.24 just finished its six-month development cycle, and it's now the most advanced stable version of the modern and popular desktop environment used by default in numerous GNU/Linux distributions. It was developed since October 2016 under the GNOME 3.23.x umbrella, during which it received numerous improvements. Prominent new features of the GNOME 3.24 desktop environment include a Night Light functionality that promises to automatically shift the colors of your display to the warmer end of the spectrum after sunset, and a brand-new GNOME Control Center with redesigned Users, Keyboard and Mouse, Online Accounts, Bluetooth, and Printer panels. As for the GNOME apps, we can mention that the Nautilus file manager now lets users browse files as root (system administrator), GNOME Photos imitates Darktable's exposure and blacks adjustment tool, GNOME Music comes with ownCloud integration and lets you edit tags, and GNOME Calendar finally brings the Week view. New apps like GNOME Recipes are also part of this release. The full release notes can be viewed here. Softpedia notes in conclusion: "As mentioned before, it will take at least a couple of weeks for the new GNOME 3.24 packages to land on the stable repositories of your favorite distro, which means that you'll most probably be able to upgrade from GNOME 3.22 when the first point release, GNOME 3.24.1, is out on April 12, 2017."
Nintendo

Nintendo Is Repairing Left Joy-Cons With ... a Piece of Foam? (polygon.com) 80

While Nintendo remains silent on the issue of some left Joy-Con controllers becoming desynced from the Switch console, it appears it has a solution for those affected. No, it's not avoidance of aquariums or all other wireless devices; instead, it's apparently as simple as a foam sticker placed in the right spot. From a report: Early reviews and, later, actual retail units of the Nintendo Switch highlighted an apparent hardware flaw in the design of the left Joy-Con controller. In certain scenarios -- like when played some distance from the console using the Joy-Con Grip -- some left Joy-Cons could lose sync and players would find themselves unable to accurately control what's happening on the screen. While a day one console update fixed this issue for some, it's remained for others and Nintendo has done little to assuage would-be consumers that it's solved the issue for good. But, a Joy-Con sent in for repair by CNET's Sean Hollister was returned with one small enhancement a week later and -- lo and behold -- it works. That enhancement: A small piece of conductive foam.

Comment Re:If it ain't broke... (Score 1) 249

Assuming that those options aren't problems from the code maintenance or security points of view

All options are problems from a code maintenance and testing point of view. Every feature has an ongoing cost. If the cost exceeds the benefit, which is almost certainly the case if the feature is very little-used and there are other more often-used and roughly equally-convenient/effective ways to accomplish the same thing, then the feature should be removed.

That said, I use close-to-right all the time and hope it doesn't get axed. OTOH, another poster pointed out that it's also possible to multi-select then use Ctrl-W to close the selected tabs, which is almost as convenient when close-to-right is what I want, and also handles other cases where I want to batch close but close-to-right isn't what I want, so I won't be too annoyed if close-to-right is removed.

Comment Re:Huh? I use these all the time. (Score 1) 249

I'm sure the real reasoning behind this is to pad their usage stats. Chrome users spend 25% more time on your website and spend $fake_dollars more!

Padding usage stats in this way would be a bad idea for Google, because it would appear to sites that Chrome users spend more time on their sites... but spend less per unit of time (because no one buys from an idle background tab), making the Chrome user base appear to be less desirable than the user base of other browsers.

Comment Re:Huh? I use these all the time. (Score 1) 249

It's fucking stupid. It's rarely needed function that is rarely used. IT'S STILL NEEDED.

I use "close tabs to right" all the time[1], myself, so I hope this doesn't go away. That said, I disagree with your idea that if something is rarely used it should be kept. Your other example (clearing cookies) is a bad one because there is no other way to do that, but in this case tabs can be -- and generally are -- closed one at a time, and in fact Chrome is careful to move the tabs around so that the close button for the next tab is under your cursor when you close one. This means that "close to the right" can also be done by moving your mouse to the "x" on the first tab to remove, then tapping the mouse button rapidly until all of them are gone. Unless you have more than the 20-30 tabs that I typically have open, that's really not so terrible. Plus, as others in this thread have pointed out, you can multi-select tabs then batch close them that way. There are other reasonably-good ways to achieve the goal, so if this is one is rarely used, there's no way to argue that it's actually necessary.

As for why to remove it... features cost. Every feature you keep in a product is a feature that has to be maintained and tested. Development and testing resources are not infinite -- not even at Google -- and the accumulated burden of lots of old and rarely-used features gradually slows progress on new features, security fixes, etc. It makes a great deal of sense to remove features that aren't used much and which have more often-used alternatives.

[1] My normal browsing style is to open every link in a new tab, and to use Ctrl-W to go "back". So my tab bar ends up being a breadcrumb trail of my path through a web site, and when I'm done with something I close the "site" with "close tabs to right". I also keep a couple of pinned tabs (email and calendar, in that order), so when I want to close "everything" I've been doing, I "close tabs to right" on the calendar tab.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...

Working...