Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Wow. (Score 1) 176

Yes Sir, that's another one of our great hits! Between you me and the fence post, we're also looking into commissioning a pilot for a new show called NCIS:Cyber, featuring the Naval Criminal Intelligence agencies that protect our brave Marines from hackers.

Also, I don't know if you like to laugh (who doesn't?) but we're looking for some top notch comedy writers for our humorous look at the "science" world, The Big Bang Theory. If you think you have what it takes, and are familiar with the kinds of shows nerds watch, like The Star Trek, and Firebug, send us your resume and some samples of your work, and maybe you can join our writing team!

- LM

Comment Re:Still a dream (Score 1) 142

It's almost certainly a hell of a lot easier to build a self-driving flying car than it is to build a self driving regular car. Regular cars have to follow roads, watch for people in unexpected places, adapt to road works, etc. Flying cars just need a rough direction to go in, and the ability to detect obstacles, with three dimensions to move around in to dodge them.

If that weren't the case, and we weren't able to create a self driving technology, I'd still question the logic that it's somehow more difficult to manually control something like this than it is a regular car. Why? What makes it harder?

Comment Re:Wow. (Score 1) 176

Hi, sorry to butt in but I'm Leslie Moonves, the President of CBS. After reading this, I'm convinced you're the right person to become the new showrunner of our hit show "<\Scorpion". You obviously know the cyber, which makes you more than qualified. Please email me as soon as possible.

PS: You guys like being paid in "Bitcons", right?

Comment Re:Cox has low customer satisfaction? (Score 1) 95

Yeah, I know why they're hated as a cable TV company, but the ISP side of Comcast has always been pretty decent in my experience, and I don't know anyone who has anything bad to say about that side of them. Sure, the data caps is an ongoing concern, but they haven't implemented anything evil on that side, beyond introducing the concept to begin with.

Comment Re:Libreoffice is a thing (Score 1) 214

git is a tiny fraction of what's needed to replace OneDrive - unsurprising given it's a source code version control/management system. If you were to start from scratch creating a OneDrive alternative, you'd probably start with Apache, not git. Add versioning and more advanced permissions to Apache's WebDAV implementation, a web interface to the same directory (preferably linked to something capable of at least viewing Word etc documents online), and client tools to sync with Apache, and you're pretty close to being there.

Comment Re:Libreoffice is a thing (Score 2, Insightful) 214

This is about Microsoft's non-subscription version of Office being able to access the corporate version of OneDrive, so LibreOffice won't help here.

It'd be interesting to see the FOSS community come up with an equivalent to OneDrive (if we could somehow do it without needing a central server, that'd be a major step forward) but a FOSS office suite isn't going to help.

Comment Re:Time to switch (Score 1) 214

Those will still work with the business version of OneDrive after 2020? Or did you misunderstand the summary and think Microsoft is deactivating Office 2016 in 2020 completely?

What Microsoft is announcing is relatively obscure and probably won't affect many people at all. Home users will be completely unaffected. Businesses are largely moving over to Office 365 anyway, the combination of "Corporate OneDrive + non-subscription Office" is pretty unusual.

Switching over to the Mac (or, more easily, to LibreOffice/OpenOffice) won't help in the slightest.

Comment Re: The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 306

If you look in the FEMA site, they say that they provide gramts to perform repairs not covered by insurance. And no, they don't do a needs test. Now, the typical rich person does not let their insurance lapse just so that they can get a FEMA grant. Because such a grant is no sure thing. They also point out that SBA loans are the main source of assistance following a disaster. You get a break on interest, but you have to pay them back.

Comment Re: The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 306

I understand your point about view land being desirable even though it's a flood risk. I live a mile or so from the Hayward fault. But I have California's risk pool earthquake insurance. The government wouldn't be paying me except from a fund that I've already paid into. I imagine that the government does pay some rich people in similar situations, but as far as I'm aware disaster funds go to the States from the federal government and should not in general become a form of rich people's welfare. Maybe you can find some direct evidence to show me that would make the situation more clear.

Comment Re:The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 306

What you are observing is economics. As a city or town population grows, the best land becomes unavailable and those who arrive later or have less funds available must settle for less desirable land. Thus many cities have been extended using landfill which liquifies as the San Francisco Marina District did in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, or floods. Risks may not be disclosed by developers, or may be discounted by authorities as the risks of global warming are today.

Efforts to protect people who might otherwise buy such land or to mitigate the risks are often labeled as government over-reach or nanny state.

Comment Re:The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 306

Oh, of course they were caused by misguided engineering efforts. Everything from the Army Corps of Engineers to Smoky Bear goes under that heading. The most basic problem is the fact that we locate cities next to resources and transportation, which means water, without realizing where the 400-year flood plane is. Etc. We have learned something since then.

Our problem, today, is fixing these things. Which is blocked by folks who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, or even cause and effect at all. They don't, for the most part, register Democratic.

Comment The problem with your explanation (Score 5, Insightful) 306

The problem with your explanation is that it's fact-based, and stands on good science. This is the post-truth era. Thus, the counter to your argument will be:

  • Evidence for a human cause of erosion is thin and controversial, and is being pushed by loony liberals.
  • We need those oil and shipping jobs, and jobs building and maintaining levees, not more regulation that stifles them!
  • Cause and effect is not a real thing, except for one cause, God is behind everything.
  • This is part of God's plan for us. The end time is coming, and when the Rapture arrives it will not matter that Louisiana's coast has eroded. Cease your pursuit of unholy science and pray to save your soul!

Slashdot Top Deals

We don't really understand it, so we'll give it to the programmers.

Working...