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 Almost changed my mind on Wheeler (Score 2) 33

I'm becoming concerned that Wheeler actually is, as feared, a shill for comcast et al. I'm wondering if the net neutrality issue he tried to push was designed to fail, I'm not a lawyer nor have I read much about it. Now he's backing down from opening up the cable industry to competition. Is it possible his job was just to lull us into not worrying about it, and letting the telecos get everything they want?

Comment Maybe because of the insults? (Score 1) 2

One does not get into "a long winded battle involving a tirade of insults" without throwing insults back. If they were on-topic and valid against t-mobile I'd really like to hear what those insults were.

If they were along the lines of "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries" then maybe you got censored for being abusive and off-topic rather than for a valid criticism.

Comment Re:Holmes (Score 1) 40

I'm guessing there's plenty of wiggle room, though IANAL and I've never heard of the certification they revoked.

I'm guessing, for example, that if they ACTUALLY came up with something that works, you'd find the certification reinstated. They have a lot of high powered investors who can pull some strings.

And while it was based on snake oil, I'm still impressed with Holmes' ability to sell it. If anything, that's MORE impressive! She must have some amazing salesman skills. As well as zero ethics. Don't get me wrong, she very much should be out of a job and in jail, and I wouldn't be surprised if that were coming, but still, she has some talent, clearly.

Comment Re:Slashdot Smear? (Score 4, Insightful) 373

While it is written as a smear, I don't find it to be a very effective smear. It may be weird, but it's not like Gawker is saying "He SUCKS THE BLOOD OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION." It's not superstition or witchcraft or obviously morally wrong despite gawker's spin on it.

"Peter Thiel wants to live longer? OH DEAR GOD, WHAT A MONSTER! He should be content with living as long as God intended, a ripe old 45!"

I'm a biologist, and I think it's great that someone in silicone valley is funding something which could actually add years and health to my life rather than another app for sharing pictures people making duck faces. So maybe you're just not the right type of nerd, but I find it VERY germane here and interesting, and not a smear.

Comment Re: This will piss off the republicans! (Score 1) 153

"Secret" here has a different meaning. Geochurch is fond of media attention, he's been on Colbert, does big interviews, he promotes himself. I wouldn't be surprised if he contacted news himself afterward. Not knocking him here, this stuff isn't like a sex scandal, it doesn't exactly promote itself without effort, and I think people should be informed about this stuff.

I do doubt that he made it "secret" though specifically to make it more headline grabbing. I expect he made it closed so it woudln't be public disclosure and wouldn't prevent him from patenting stuff. IIRC, he's peripherally involved in the CRISPR patent that will likely generate billions. The technology reported here undoubtedly has a giant amount of potential if patented as well.

I have also heard statements that they made it closed so when published it would get into better journals and be more novel. I'm skeptical about this, as the top journals are still going to gobble it up, and also Church could practically record himself farting and it would be considered for "Science."

Comment Re:Cost of making the USA piss their pants: Pricel (Score 1) 409

Everyone in the region also seems to hate everyone else in the region though. And Iran's economy is in shambles much like most of the rest of the economies in the regions are in shambles (excluding oil tycoons that is).

Don't get me wrong, I think Iran is behaving extremely stupidly. You're right that hate is holding them back probably, just let's acknowledge that the US wouldn't exactly be pouring money into them if they'd hold hands at UN conferences.

Comment Re: "He hasn't stopped giving." (Score 1) 284

I realize you and all your linux-using friends might know him as a heartless bastard, but if you think "history" will remember the greedy things he did to computing, I think you're being naive.

I'm wondering if most people today even remember that he started MS. "Bill Gates? He's that rich guy who runs a charity. Can't quite remember how he got his money. Did he invent computers?"

Comment Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! (Score 1) 284

Islam is the religion of peace! Well, except for a few radicals, maybe 2 or 3 percent, which would only make about a million radicals. And, maybe except for their supporters, maybe 20 percent or so, which would make about 200 million.

I actually think you have those numbers closer to reversed. The financial supporters of terrorism seem to pretty much be limited to those loyal middle eastern friends of ours, Saud royal family.

Comment Re:Seriously...? (Score 1) 241

I'd argue that nearly the entire defense industry is completely unnecessary to national defense. Fighting terrorism is not national defense. Keeping Iraq intact is not national defense. Supporting Israel is not national defense. Keeping friendly powers in OPEC to keep them from raising oil prices is not national defense. Being aggressive to Iran is not national defense.

Telling ourselves all of these things are important to somehow keep bad guys from boating over here and invading is a wonderful way of avoiding admitting that we're utterly incompetent at doing much more than making enemies to fight later. Also keeps the money flowing. I'd be okay with it mostly if we could 1. Admit that it's not "national defense" it's just being dicks and 2. If it wouldn't impinge on our freedoms.

Comment Error in headline (Score 5, Insightful) 301

The paper was not rejected because of one reviewer. It's standard to have THREE reviewers, this is one guy out of three. Additionally, it's the editor's call whether to accept or reject it. Typically that's based on the reviewers recommendation. However, the editor could and should have ignored that one reviewer and accepted it anyway. Actually, the AE should have deleted the review and said to the authors "Sorry, the third reviewer never turned in his review, sending it out for a different reviewer." The AE could have accepted it even if all three reviewers had insightful criticisms of the paper and said it was horrible.

In other words, the rejection for publication could have nothing to do with that one review, it was not rejected due to that review, it was rejected by the editor who showed poor judgement in accepting the sexist review.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Irrigation of the land with sewater desalinated by fusion power is ancient. It's called 'rain'." -- Michael McClary, in alt.fusion

Working...