Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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:memory loss defence? (Score 1) 602

... and who wants idiots providing operational support down the road?

I have to assume this is a rhetorical question, based on my past experiences with situations such as this. "Down the road" is a mythical place to many people, whereas the "savings" by firing expensive people and replacing them with inexperienced dipshits occurs in real time.

Comment Re:OT: Dogs (Score 2) 435

this is why the best option is to strap the safety crate to the roof of the vehicle, and let the dog fear-poop itself while getting its fill of the 60mph scent-hurricane of highway travel.

Mitt, is that you?

Comment Re:But *are* there enough eyes? (Score 5, Insightful) 255

This is just FUD. Whatever the number of the eyes, they are certainly far more than open source. I have already contributed many bug reports and often fixes, would you care to elaborate how I would do that in a closed source model? Because I am *very* curious.

FUD? Sure, there are *more* eyes in open source than closed source: that's not the point. Are there *enough* eyes to prevent potentially catastrophic bugs from being exploited? I'd submit that we're seeing that there isn't. I'm not suggesting that closed source is superior, but let's not confuse some sort of moral superiority being attributed to open source as being equivalent to automatic technical superiority. In most cases, I'd agree that open source has technical superiority, but it's not automatic.

Comment But *are* there enough eyes? (Score 5, Insightful) 255

The phrase might be true, but we're seeing the effects of insufficient eyes. In reality, how many sets of eyes are actually reviewing these libraries at a source code level? I rather strongly suspect that in most cases they are simply used under the assumption that "well, everyone uses it, it must be okay".

Comment Re:Wow, that is fiction. (Score 3, Insightful) 191

"If the government has to decide what to fund and what not to fund, they are going to get their ideas and decisions mostly from the Bible rather than anything remotely reasonable."

We need the populace to elect different folks before the dream of the former would be true.

You're close. It should read "If the government has to decide what to fund and what not to fund, they are going to get their ideas and decisions entirely from the people who bought them with campaign contributions and bribes, and will never vote to fund anything they are told by their owners not to."

Comment Re:I used to be an engineer. I worked for Motorola (Score 2) 370

When I turned 42...

Now I am a dentist

How is this remotely plausible? How the heck this get moderated insightful?

How is it not plausible? Lots of people go back to school, and if he's smart with his money he could afford to take the time to become a dentist. It's not like medical school has a defined cutoff age for admissions. Yeah, he's on the older end of the scale, but so what?

Submission + - Skip "Ender's Game" because of Card's anti-gay views? 1

tj2 writes: Like many, I was a big fan of Orson Scott Card's Ender series, and was often struck by the empathic characters in the books. It was very disappointing to find that his real-world views displayed a marked lack of said empathy when gay rights was the subject. Now it appears that there's a campaign to boycott the movie version of Ender's Game due to those views. What does the Slashdot community think? Should a movie (or book, or whatever) be judged separately from its author? Or is it right to boycott a film as a way to demonstrate that bigoted (in my opinion) attitudes can have financial consequences?

Comment Re:Completely agree with this... (Score 0, Troll) 245

Yes, because God forbid the people at the games actually, you know, watch the games instead of surfing the web, tweeting inane opinions or Facebooking their opinions of the refs. And "tragedy"? Really? If the officials at these stadia have emergency plans for disasters that depend on all the fans having cell phone access, they ought to be flogged. We've had major sporting events for a *whole* lot longer than we've had cell phones.

Disclaimer: I've worked in wireless since the early days of cellular, and I was a field tech at Cellular One in Seattle back when turning up the 20th tower in the Seattle MSA was a big deal for us. So I understand that what you are saying is correct technically, but I'm far from convinced that this is a burning issue that the FCC needs to address. I'm still further from convinced that this isn't simply more kowtowing to the wireless carriers to allow them Yet Another Revenue Stream for which they do nothing.

And I have a repeater at my house. I'm in a semi-rural area, and the signal strength at my house flat-out sucks. My little signal repeater puts out at most 1W, and my nearest neighbor is about 200 yards away. I don't think I'm likely to cause significant interference to anyone, but it improves the usability of my cell phone dramatically.

Comment Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score 1) 1591

And actually every M14 except for the National Match is capable of full auto fire. Some of the issued rifles did not have the selector switch installed, and that is the only thing that limited it to semi-auto operation.

Well, technically all semi-automatics are *capable* of fully automatic operation (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) with appropriate mods. Hell, I've even seen old plans in a Guns and Ammo magazine of somebody's idea in the late 1800's to make a lever-action rifle into either a semi-auto or automatic rifle. Looked unwieldy as hell, but still.

Having said that, I didn't realize that M-14's were initially designed to be selective fire between semi-auto and full auto. You learn something new every day. :-)

Comment Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score 1) 1591

I'm pretty sure he meant M-14. The M-14 is a semi-automatic .30 caliber rifle, not fully automatic by default except for specialized models. I shot one regularly when I was in the Navy.

I've always thought the M-14 with a synthetic stock was a fine weapon. They're accurate, rugged and have considerably more power that any 5.56mm round. You could use an M-14 as a tent peg and then run over it with a truck and it would still work.

Slashdot Top Deals

May Euell Gibbons eat your only copy of the manual!