Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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: Thanks Hillary! (Score 1) 107

No, that's what people don't understand. CU wasn't some general-purpose corporation, it existed just to pool resources to run a political film. That ruling did not allow normal corporations to buy political ads.

If you allow newspapers to run political commentary at all, then the very rich can get their message across by simply buying the whole thing.

Another point the court made is that the New York Times is a corporation, and does quite a bit of political speech, as directly permitted by the 1st. Do you really want the government saying this corp that exists to publish speech can publish political speech, but that corp that exists to publish speech cannot? That would be the end of free speech.

Comment Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike (Score 1) 111

Terror attacks are rare in the US because we've kept the terrorists out. Now there's a concerted effort to ship terrorists to the western world. Europe has changed from attacks being just as rare as here, to attacks being common. Let's not have that here. Islamic terrorists killed over 22,000 people last year, and it's an ongoing and increasing campaign. Keep the attacks here rare, please.

Comment Re: Thanks Hillary! (Score 1) 107

Most people misunderstand Citizens United. It actually helps level the playing field. I can't buy an ad spot big enough to matter, but if there are a bunch of like-minded people who can pool are money, we can. The alternative is the far-reaching political speech is limited to the likes of Jeff Bezos, who can buy an entire newspaper (this was the norm in the age of the robber barons).

Comment Re: Evil bugs (Score 2) 240

Fundamental library code is either as fast as possible, or useless. You know know who or how the library code will be used, so you have to assume plentiful use cases where every instruction matters. The std::map code is particularly bad (even in CLANG) .

When you're delivering the end product, sure, don't optimize until proven necessary. That's a different world than library code. Not every thing is your thing, surprising as that may be.

Comment Re:Huh? I use these all the time. (Score 1) 224

I have used close-to-right only once, a long time ago. Here are two similar things I currently often do:

1. Close all -- just click the little close box. Saves a few clicks over the close all tabs.

2. Close all but one -- grab the tab and pull it out into another window, then alt-tab back and click the close box on the previous window.

Easy, faster, and completely intuitive.

Comment Re:They're going to lose a lot of good people. (Score 1) 292

My point was: you can't call here a bad CEO, because bad CEOs destroy companies, often quite quickly.

Stock price is the best guess of people good at financial analysis of the future financial prospects of a company. The wisdom of that crowd is generally better than you'd think. Of course, where they're wrong, there's lots of money to be made.

Comment Re: Thanks Hillary! (Score 1) 107

Were fundamentally blocked, I'd say, partly on ideological purity, but more on the fundamental corruption of the federal government: it exists mostly to protect the financial interests of the establishment donors. Globalism is great for multinational corporations. Open borders are great for those who can afford to travel to Europe on a whim.

Our government has been stable a long time serving those interests, and now, with that challenged (and thus the primary focus of all the back rooms), issues of actual like what to do about health care, are getting minimal efforts, mostly retreaded bad ideas.

Comment Re:think of the children! (Score 3, Interesting) 143

Actually yes. Scientific or not, a list short enough for kids to learn in grade school is a damn good idea

Well, then, it's time to start teaching that there's only 8 rivers in the world, and all others are dwarf rivers and don't count as rivers. And 8 bones in the human body, the rest being dwarf bones that aren't really bones. And 8 particles in physics, and all others dwarf particles and don't count as particles. And 8 galaxies in the universe.... you get the picture.

. And for fuck's sake, Pluto and the other KBOs ARE DIFFERENT ENOUGH from the asteroids

Since we're apparently going into shouting mode, Pluto IS FAR MORE LIKE THE TERRESTRIAL PLANETS THAN THE TERRESTRIAL PLANETS ARE LIKE THE GAS GIANTS. If anything should be kicked out of the planet club, it's the gas giants.

The issue isn't whether KBOs should have their own classification. They do: KBOs. The question is whether it makes sense to group dissimilar objects (terrestrial planets and gas giants) but artificially exclude other objects in hydrostatic equilibrium, objects with active geology, internal differentiation, fluids, and all of the other hallmarks we associate with planets. Nature has given us a very clear dividing line: objects in hydrostatic equilibrium are where you go to see tectonics, mineralization, fluids, search for life, etc, while objects not in hydrostatic equilibrium are where you go to learn about the formation of the solar system, find its building blocks, learn about what life was built from, etc. Nature rarely gives us such meaningful dividing lines, but in this case, it has, and we should respect it.

Comment Classical physics, er, error (Score 2) 374

She falls into the same trap that most do who think about this problem -- that the super-universe in which our simulation is embedded has physics anything like what is being simulated for us (or with us as a side effect.)

If it can do uncounted googleplex operations per second, with similar abailability of storage space (or equivalent for an analog computer!) then none of her speed concerns are valid. Indeed, the cosmic speed limit here is a curious oddity, perhaps deliberately ala Vinge's Zones of Thought.

As for Bell's inequality and hidden variables, again, if it is all simulated, none of that matters. Hidden variables is only an issue if you need to maintain Einstein's concept of reality, that there are real objects "out there" with real, measurable properties. If one gives up on that reality, one can base quantum mechanics on a deeper classical realism with no problems whatsoever.

But even that need not be the ultimate reality. But her concerns are only issues if one, needlessly, and I submit oddly, wants to maintain that that parent computer's physics is anything like the physics being sinulated.

Comment Re:No (Score 2) 143

Well, the current definition is "cleared the neighborhood" (despite how much that they like to pretend that it actually says "gravitationally dominant"). And Earth most definitely has not cleared its moon. So....

Actually, by that definition, Earth isn't a moon, either, as it doesn't orbit something defined as a planet. Earth would be a "small solar system body".

Slashdot Top Deals

Work smarter, not harder, and be careful of your speling.