A tabletop X-ray laser would be transformative for chemists and biologists, who could use the bright X-rays to study the molecular basis of matter and life with atomic precision, and femtosecond time resolution, without traveling to a large national facility."
Let's not kid ourselves, we are not naive here. The whole point of this article is to tell people that the experts are not debating and are in fact in a consensus on this issue (check the reply above you http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3760341&cid=43752173 ). My point is, I wouldn't care if it was the opposite, I would still believe it because it is based on sound science.
I have the same question, but I think they meant that if they feel that you have data about something important going to happen. Like the Boston bomber if they had suspicion that his data contains information on more stuff to happen they can compel him to decrypt it.
But I could be wrong.
Yes, but when a bug is found in either of them (Firefox or Chrome) devs race to plug the whole. On the other hand Oracle knew about this since August and did nothing about it..
I disagree. While I am an open source advocate (and use it extensively). I do not see why everything "has" to be open source. Open source is a philosophy, DRM is pure idiocy disguised as philosophy!
What's so difficult about switching to IPv6 ?
I mean where the cost really is ? It is not like I have to buy all of my hardware again, it is mostly a software issue right ?
No it is not. The new particle found is a higgs candidate. Look back at the press conference they made few month ago, none of the scientists claimed they found the higgs boson.
Big Whoooop!
It is not a news that a paper written by god knows how many people, that was revised time and time again by a big time collaboration getting the ok to be published!
Seriously this not news at all.
You have three unsupported assumption:
1) That the Iranian are actively building one ( I think they might be, but no proof on that. However, they might want one but this is a different issue )
2) That they will use it
3) Iran is not a rational player( goes hand in hand with 2) )
Iranian actions since 1979 are reactionary actions ( they are scared from being invaded by the US ), an Iranian bomb would serve the role as an invasion inhibitory weapon. However, if you are going to quote Iranian officials saying that they will erase Israel from the map, you'd be a fool if you do not place it as verbal showcasing intended as something to gather support from Arabic populations. The matter of fact is on the long run Saudi Arabia has been the prime motivator and money supplier of every salafi/Wahabi Jihadist in the world. Yet we turn an eye on their actions because they are our allies ( I wonder why! --wink wink oil--).
Iran and Saudi Arabia are both terrorist loving countries, both are bad. It is just that one is much more effective at what they do. And I would love nothing than see a regime change in both of these countries.
I guess in the end we are both agreeing to how bad these two countries are, just differing on who is worse. I think in parallel to imposing sanctions on Iran, Saudi Arabia should get its own version of Oil embargo.
And I think you missed those Saudi backed Salafist Jihadist ranking foul of that region for a long time. The most dangerous thing in that region is not an Iranian bomb, it is Saudi money.
I would rather Saudis get hacked than Iranians. For someone who grew up in the Middle east, Saudi Arabia is much much dangerous than Iran ( regardless of political inclinations ).
This is a different discussion, I agree that it is stupid. But copyright holders have a right to pursue their rights regardless of our opinion on said rights or what the law allow and doesn't allow. If they want to pursue it, then do it in a way that both conserve their rights and yours. You have a right to presumption of innocence and they have a right ( by the proxy of police or something else) to pursue every information they have.
Agents of the law never don't the answer: I didn't do it, or I had nothing to do with it. That is irrelevant, if they want to take you to court anyhow, then regardless of your answer you are still going to court.
Look at it from this point of view: A crime has been committed and the police know the criminal used a rental car from the X agency. Why wouldn't they go and question the owner of agency X ? He might be the one who did it, he might know who did it or can offer information, or (most probably) knows nothing about the incident. And if they have a specific rental date or car model they can even demand the information about people who rented that specific date or that specific car. Why in one case is acceptable but in another is not ?
Slashdot Mirror
That's the clever part (on Comcast's part), if the costumer is not paying to receive the content they are not really guilty of anything!
I would have thought that would be a sarcastic remark on how the media is behaving!
In other news, sending a copy of yesterday's lecture to a friend magically changes the original copy, news at 11!
What the heck is that ??
A tabletop X-ray laser would be transformative for chemists and biologists, who could use the bright X-rays to study the molecular basis of matter and life with atomic precision, and femtosecond time resolution, without traveling to a large national facility."
And be labeled a terrorist as well!
He meant a special unique password: 1) Password number 1: 123456789 --- Unlocks the phone 2) Password number 2: 987654321 --- Wipes the phone
Let's not kid ourselves, we are not naive here. The whole point of this article is to tell people that the experts are not debating and are in fact in a consensus on this issue (check the reply above you http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3760341&cid=43752173 ). My point is, I wouldn't care if it was the opposite, I would still believe it because it is based on sound science.
But saying that 97% of climate science papers agree on it does not validate it.
I would love an answer to your question as well.
I have the same question, but I think they meant that if they feel that you have data about something important going to happen. Like the Boston bomber if they had suspicion that his data contains information on more stuff to happen they can compel him to decrypt it. But I could be wrong.
Yes, but when a bug is found in either of them (Firefox or Chrome) devs race to plug the whole. On the other hand Oracle knew about this since August and did nothing about it..
Serious question, what about imagur (I think that's how it is spelled) ?
I disagree. While I am an open source advocate (and use it extensively). I do not see why everything "has" to be open source. Open source is a philosophy, DRM is pure idiocy disguised as philosophy!
I am more concerned about the original paper ( which is no where to be found ) then proper newsfeed and what not.
What's so difficult about switching to IPv6 ? I mean where the cost really is ? It is not like I have to buy all of my hardware again, it is mostly a software issue right ?
No it is not. The new particle found is a higgs candidate. Look back at the press conference they made few month ago, none of the scientists claimed they found the higgs boson.
Well you do know that this is not yet pinned down as the Higgs boson!
Big Whoooop! It is not a news that a paper written by god knows how many people, that was revised time and time again by a big time collaboration getting the ok to be published! Seriously this not news at all.
I'm bored, that's why I play video games.
In Saudi Arabia they cut the offending body part... Ouch...
You have three unsupported assumption: 1) That the Iranian are actively building one ( I think they might be, but no proof on that. However, they might want one but this is a different issue ) 2) That they will use it 3) Iran is not a rational player( goes hand in hand with 2) ) Iranian actions since 1979 are reactionary actions ( they are scared from being invaded by the US ), an Iranian bomb would serve the role as an invasion inhibitory weapon. However, if you are going to quote Iranian officials saying that they will erase Israel from the map, you'd be a fool if you do not place it as verbal showcasing intended as something to gather support from Arabic populations. The matter of fact is on the long run Saudi Arabia has been the prime motivator and money supplier of every salafi/Wahabi Jihadist in the world. Yet we turn an eye on their actions because they are our allies ( I wonder why! --wink wink oil--). Iran and Saudi Arabia are both terrorist loving countries, both are bad. It is just that one is much more effective at what they do. And I would love nothing than see a regime change in both of these countries. I guess in the end we are both agreeing to how bad these two countries are, just differing on who is worse. I think in parallel to imposing sanctions on Iran, Saudi Arabia should get its own version of Oil embargo.
And I think you missed those Saudi backed Salafist Jihadist ranking foul of that region for a long time. The most dangerous thing in that region is not an Iranian bomb, it is Saudi money.
I would rather Saudis get hacked than Iranians. For someone who grew up in the Middle east, Saudi Arabia is much much dangerous than Iran ( regardless of political inclinations ).
This is a different discussion, I agree that it is stupid. But copyright holders have a right to pursue their rights regardless of our opinion on said rights or what the law allow and doesn't allow. If they want to pursue it, then do it in a way that both conserve their rights and yours. You have a right to presumption of innocence and they have a right ( by the proxy of police or something else) to pursue every information they have.
Agents of the law never don't the answer: I didn't do it, or I had nothing to do with it. That is irrelevant, if they want to take you to court anyhow, then regardless of your answer you are still going to court. Look at it from this point of view: A crime has been committed and the police know the criminal used a rental car from the X agency. Why wouldn't they go and question the owner of agency X ? He might be the one who did it, he might know who did it or can offer information, or (most probably) knows nothing about the incident. And if they have a specific rental date or car model they can even demand the information about people who rented that specific date or that specific car. Why in one case is acceptable but in another is not ?