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! ×

Some Children's Headphones Raise Concerns of Hearing Loss, Report Says (go.com) 77

Some headphones marketed for children may not restrict enough noise for young ears. From a report on ABC: The Wirecutter, a technology products review website (owned by the New York Times), tried out 30 different children's headphones for style, fit and safety by using both a plastic model ear and a few real children. "There's no governing board that oversees this," Lauren Dragan, the Headphone Editor at The Wirecutter, told "Good Morning America" in an interview that aired today. Dragan added that the headphones for children all claim to limit volume to around 85 decibels. Sound below the 85 decibel mark for a maximum of eight hours is considered safe, according to the World Health Organization. The Wirecutter report found that some of these headphones emit sound higher than the 85 decibel mark. The full report here.

Comment Awkward question if it already exists in some form (Score 1) 588

Is it just me who wonders if such a thing already exists in a less draconian form? If our communications are being monitored, surely the first thing you'd do is categorise them so you can filter later? Using this system, it would be possible to track Christians, racists and vegetarians, without the explicit aim of tracking muslims. Secondly, the way the question is phrased, unless the BSD licence has a "not for muslim-tracking use" clause I've missed, several high profile open source companies would technically not be able to answer no. They don't ask how their tools are going to be used. Another example of badly thought through journalism to create sensationalist headlines. Not slashdot worthy.

Comment Re:How do you get cheaper than free? (Score 5, Informative) 245

Hell, it's not even cost effective to switch to another SQL database like PostgreSQL.

Can you imagine the downtime required to export Facebook from MySQL and to re-import it to another database? The users would go ballistic!

I don't expect any "earth shattering" movement by any of the big users in the near future.

I'm involved in a project that involves moving databases. We write each transaction to both the old and new structure using our data access layer, then export historic data and eventually, once we've verified the new system is working as expected, remove the old structure from the data access layer. This is the main reason data access layers are used.

Comment Re:Might wait to see if this turns out to be true (Score 1) 369

Sounds like what intel have been doing to processors for years. If its cheaper to make millions of 1 better processor than more models but less volume of each, you need to differentiate on price to keep profit high and allow the people who would use the cheaper models still able to afford it. So they cripple some of the processors and sell them at reduced price. Its just the company taking advantage of economies of scale. If they couldn't, theyd have to increase the price of the lowest models to design them from scratch with reduced performance or reduce profits!

Comment Simple (Score 2, Interesting) 510

I'm an electronic engineer and I could have told you that the relationship between blade length and efficiency is non-linear. We learnt that at uni. People really need to get over their attitudes against the sight of large wind turbines. It is the only efficient way of doing this. Being a brit, large wind farms over here are a more difficult sell as we are quite limited for space, however several projects are being undertaken. In the states, you have the desert which seems a perfect area to locate your wind farms, dependant on wind levels. Get your hands off the oil :p

Comment Definition of God (Score 1) 469

I'm writing a book on social provocation amongst other things. I personally use the word god a lot like UFO. By definition if I cannot identify a flying object, it is a UFO. Once it is identified, it is not a UFO any more. Using the definition of god as a system beyond our scientific grasp of reality, then I believe in god. A discussion of god providing further clarity and definition can then begin and change with the advancement of science. As a scientist and engineer, a common basic understanding between parties is necessary to prevent non-constructive argument. I believe this has led to a lot of the difficulties in the past, creating contradictory views. Stop it please.

Slashdot Top Deals

I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere.