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 Does anyone else hear that? (Score 1) 93

That sound, it's not thunder, or a train. That's Steve rolling around in his grave. If he wanted the device to have a keyboard he would have included it at some point in the design. But he really wanted to eliminate all the other "accessory" pieces on computers. I highly doubt he would appreciate a former MS guy mucking with that. That being said, will I get one? Yes I probably would because I can appreciate a novel idea to a slightly bothersome issue. But the price point has to be pretty low. I wouldn't spend more than $10 on something like this. Then I can throw in in a bag and forget about it until I have a longer trip and I don't want to carry a full laptop due to size, stress, or fear of damage/theft. (Just to note it's much easier to conceal an ipad, but if someone is determined enough they could still take it.)

Comment Re:Sauce for the goose (Score 1) 926

I think this ruling will be overturned as soon as its used against a celebrity or government agent to prove or disprove their whereabouts. People with money and power have influence and I see them being primary targets. I'm sure it's under their radar now but it only takes one high profile case to get things moving. Anyone else think this is kinda like a pre-Mcarthy wet dream?
First Person Shooters (Games)

Gamer Plays Doom For the First Time 362

sfraggle writes "Kotaku has an interesting review of Doom (the original!) by Stephen Totilo, a gamer and FPS player who, until a few days ago, had gone through the game's 17-year history without playing it. He describes some of his first impressions, the surprises that he encountered, and how the game compares to modern FPSes. Quoting: 'Virtual shotgun armed, I was finally going to play Doom for real. A second later, I understood the allure the video game weapon has had. In Doom the shotgun feels mighty, at least partially I believe because they make first-timers like me wait for it. The creators make us sweat until we have it in hand. But once we have the shotgun, its big shots and its slow, fetishized reload are the floored-accelerator-pedal stuff of macho fantasy. The shotgun is, in all senses, instant puberty, which is to say, delicately, that to obtain it is to have the assumed added potency that a boy believes a man possesses vis a vis a world on which he'd like to have some impact. The shotgun is the punch in the face the once-scrawny boy on the beach gives the bully when he returns a muscled linebacker.'"

Comment Re:Having worked in a prison (Score 1) 496

In addition to all of the above the game could be used as cover to map out and plan tactical assaults on the prison personnel. If you really think about it, it's really the perfect cover. You could have 3d maps, equipment lists, personnel strengths and weaknesses all out in the open. The game format helps people conceptualize all of those things without actually having to be in every part of the jail. Inmates or guards with access could provide intimate details in a game format which would be harder to detect. That being said I don't think there should be an outright ban. They could institute a rule saying only events approved or planned by someone vetted by the staff can DM a game. That would allow the inmates an opportunity to play without the fear of not know exactly what the possible outcomes will be for any game session(s).

US Colleges Say Hiring US Students a Bad Deal 490

theodp writes "Many US colleges and universities have notices posted on their websites informing US companies that they're tax chumps if they hire students who are US citizens. 'In fact, a company may save money by hiring international students because the majority of them are exempt from Social Security (FICA) and Medicare tax requirements,' advises the taxpayer-supported University of Pittsburgh (pdf) as it makes the case against hiring its own US students. You'll find identical pitches made by the University of Delaware, the University of Cincinnati, Kansas State University, the University of Southern California, the University of Wisconsin, Iowa State University, and other public colleges and universities. The same message is also echoed by private schools, such as John Hopkins University, Brown University, Rollins College and Loyola University Chicago."

Comment Scaling soon? (Score 2, Interesting) 302

If you have the spare hardware, racks to mount it in, and the juice to run it, why not build a test environment? Just replicate work and scale it out. Do the things you wish you could do at work. Then when the time comes you already have the future expansion plan ready to go. It may suck to even think about "work" after you get home from your day job. But if you like taking on big projects, why not?

Comment Twist ahead? (Score 1) 543

This issue seems split between two camps, the "I can wonder around and film/take pictures of anything as long as you dont suffer any undue harm", and the absolute "get off my lawn!" folks. I think there's validity to both, but I'm siding with the home owners.
1. The property is marked private.
2. Street view drivers may not have seen anything posted, but being reasonably smart individuals (to operate the equipment and drive at the same time), they should have known not to enter an unmarked driveway because usually those lead to private residences.
3. Yes satellite imagery does take away a level of privacy, but those were and mostly still are government run installations who sub license to private industry. There is still a zoom cap in place. Street view breeches that distance limitation.
And the twist, "who owns the images". If the drive is marked private and Google illegally entered, and the took the intellectual property of the home owners, they can and should pay damages. Think of paparazzi and famous people. If the papz get a zoom lens at take pictures of that actor/actress in their private homes, they get the bejesus sued out of them. They regularly lose. But the funding from the images negates the cost of litigation. So they keep doing it. Google may make the same strategic decision, but they still should pay.
And, why fight this? Are they trying to tarnish the Google do "no" evil/Don't be evil image. They should admit to this being a mistake, compensate the home owners in the same range as images of non-celeb/z-listers, and call it a day. The images were already removed so the home owners cant claim they are still being harmed.

Slashdot Top Deals

May Euell Gibbons eat your only copy of the manual!