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


Forgot your password?
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:What about the dangers? Does it cause cancer? (Score 5, Informative) 215

From the very PDF you link to, Question 1, right at the beginning:

  • the more recent epidemiological studies show little evidence that either power lines or "electrical occupations" are associated with an increase in cancer (see Q19);
  • laboratory studies have shown little evidence of a link between power-frequency fields and cancer (see Q16);
  • an extensive series of studies have shown that life-time exposure of animals to power-frequency magnetic fields does not cause cancer (see Q16B);
  • a connection between power line fields and cancer is physically implausible (see Q18).

... Overall, most scientists consider that the evidence that power line fields cause or contribute to cancer is weak to nonexistent.

(Emphasis mine.)


Submission + - A Generation of Software Patents (ssrn.com)

pieterh writes: "Boston University's James Bessen has published a landmark study on a generation of software patents. Looking at almost 20 years of software patents, he finds "that most software firms still do not patent, most software patents are obtained by a few large firms in the software industry or in other industries, and the risk of litigation from software patents continues to increase dramatically. Given these findings, it is hard to conclude that software patents have provided a net social benefit in the software industry." Not that this surprises anyone actually innovating in software."

Comment "Parallel Universes" (Score 1) 506

The paper you want to read is Max Tegmark, "Parallel Universes," 2003. Available here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0302131v1

"Abstract: I survey physics theories involving parallel universes, which form a natural four-level hierarchy of multiverses allowing progressively greater diversity. Level I: A generic prediction of inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which contains Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions — including an identical copy of you about 101029 m away. Level II: In chaotic inflation, other thermalized regions may have different physical constants, dimensionality and particle content. Level III: In unitary quantum mechanics, other branches of the wavefunction add nothing qualitatively new, which is ironic given that this level has historically been the most controversial. Level IV: Other mathematical structures give different fundamental equations of physics. The key question is not whether parallel universes exist (Level I is the uncontroversial cosmological concordance model), but how many levels there are. I discuss how multiverse models can be falsified and argue that there is a severe “measure problem” that must be solved to make testable predictions at levels II-IV."

Comment Re:Solving the problem wrong (Score 1) 121

You tell a convincing tale; but why would anyone do the required rewriting by hand? The rules you mention sound very much within reach of the kinds of things obfuscating rewriters -- or compilers in general, for that matter -- do. I mean, if expensive, pointless adherence to some bureaucratic mandate is the aim, of course. Solving the problem wrong, indeed.

Comment Re:Right to everything else? (Score 1) 875

I would like a right to a paycheck despite not working, a right to house despite not paying rent,

You're welcome! Enjoy.

a right to a signifigant other provided to me by the state of the gender of my choosing.

Slavery is a different kettle of fish, don't you think?

Screw work, it is for suckers, I want to play video games all day and make the state pay for it!

Again, enjoy. I hope you recover some motivation soon.

Comment Re:I run www.reversehttp.net (Score 1) 235

If you weren't aware that your browser already has very rich network interaction capabilities, I suggest reading up on AJAX. Reversehttp, when running in a browser, is built from sandboxed javascript code, running in a page, using XMLHttpRequest, just like everything else.

It's also not actually browser specific, and applies equally well to thick clients (think Skype, or practically anything that wants to receive messages rather than just send them; you might make a broad comparison with UPNP or STUN). It's just a happy coincidence that it can be used to lift the browser up to equal status with other programming environments.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All we are given is possibilities -- to make ourselves one thing or another." -- Ortega y Gasset