Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment President-Asterisk Trump (Score 1) 162

Unless that tweet turns into a punitive regulatory action, then you've just lost a chunk of your savings.

This is a good point. We've gotten used to the Prince Jeoffrey phase of this drama, but winter is coming. The King Jeoffrey phase will be much different.

In less than 24 hours he goes from being President-Elect Trump to President* Trump, and those tweets might come with executive orders attached. (Twitter is gonna support that, they don't know it yet, but they'll do it soon, believe me.)


Comment Re:Sounds about right (Score 1) 84

Great Britain is a geographic term, the United Kingdom is a political term. Britain is synonymous with the latter, which doesn't help matters. So it doesn't matter what country or countries exist on the large island, it's name is Great Britain. Northern Ireland being in the UK or not can not affect the name of the large island :)

Submission + - Schneier: Obama Changes Rules, Allows NSA To Share Raw Data With 16 Agencies (

An anonymous reader writes: President Obama has changed the rules regarding raw intelligence, allowing the NSA to share raw data with the U.S.'s other 16 intelligence agencies. The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches. The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people. Here are the new procedures. This rule change has been in the works for a while. Here are two blog posts from April discussing the then-proposed changes.

Comment Re:Why "I" shouldn't trust Geek Squad? (Score 1) 389

First off... Geek Squad are IT professionals in the same way a burger flipper at Micky D's is a chef. They aren't.

They are no less IT professionals than, say, a senior network engineer at Google. Why?

Because nobody will be an "IT professional" until there exists a licensing organization to enforce ethical standards.

Comment Re:Breadth & Accuracy 120 years ago (Score 2) 436

I don't know if you realised, but you just told everyone how little you know about scientific research, at the same time as trying to use your knowledge of scientific research to make a point. It's rather entertaining for everyone else, but I imagine for you it's somewhat embarrassing. Let me help you for future times you insist on chiming in:

1) Yes, and? Oncologists research cancer, climatologists research the climate. Or should they swap every once in a while to keep you happy? Or is it this particular study? I have news for you - this study is duplicated many times the world over at the end of each year/start of the next. Of course climatologists are going to perform it.

2) Nope. Continued funding relies on society surviving. Extraordinary-payout-massive-awesomeness-funding would come from showing how climate change is not happening, as that will get you a Nobel prize, $1m, tenure wherever you want it, and funding for the rest of your days. Science LOVES upheavals, as that's where fantastic amounts of learning is found

3) Again, not at all. See 2)

4) Not even close. See 2)

The idea of science and scientists you are arguing against is indeed horrific, but as it only exists in your mind and the minds of people similarly disposed to you, you shouldn't worry about it perverting scientific research.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin