10 Dec 2025

feedSlashdot

In a Major New Report, Scientists Build Rationale For Sending Astronauts To Mars

A major scientific report published Tuesday argues that sending astronauts to Mars is justified by the quest to find life and conduct research that robots alone can't achieve. "We're searching for life on Mars," said Dava Newman, a professor in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and co-chair of the committee that wrote the report. "The answer to the question 'are we alone' is always going to be 'maybe,' unless it becomes yes." Ars Technica reports: The report, two years in the making and encompassing more than 200 pages, was published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Essentially, the committee co-chaired by Newman and Linda T. Elkins-Tanton, director of the University of California, Berkeley Space Sciences Laboratory, was asked to identify the highest-priority science objectives for the first human missions to Mars. [...] "There's no turning back," Newman said. "Everyone is inspired by this because it's becoming real. We can get there. Decades ago, we didn't have the technologies. This would have been a study report." The goal of the report is to help build a case for meaningful science to be done on Mars alongside human exploration. The report outlines 11 top-priority science objectives. [...] The committee also looked at different types of campaigns to determine which would be most effective for completing the science objectives noted above. The campaign most likely to be successful, they found, was an initial human landing that lasts 30 days, followed by an uncrewed cargo delivery to facilitate a longer 300-day crewed mission on the surface of Mars. All of these missions would take place in a single exploration zone, about 100 km in diameter, that featured ancient lava flows and dust storms. Notably, the report also addresses the issue of planetary protection, a principle that aims to protect both celestial bodies (i.e., the surface of Mars) and visitors (i.e., astronauts) from biological contamination. [...] In recent years, NASA has been working with the International Committee on Space Research to design a plan in which human landings might occur in some areas of the planet, while other parts of Mars are left in "pristine" condition. The committee said this work should be prioritized to reach a resolution that will further the design of human missions to Mars. "NASA should continue to collaborate on the evolution of planetary protection guidelines, with the goal of enabling human explorers to perform research in regions that could possibly support, or even harbor, life," the report states.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

10 Dec 2025 7:00am GMT

'Food and Fossil Fuel Production Causing $5 Billion of Environmental Damage an Hour'

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Guardian: The unsustainable production of food and fossil fuels causes $5 billion of environmental damage per hour, according to a major UN report. Ending this harm was a key part of the global transformation of governance, economics and finance required "before collapse becomes inevitable," the experts said. The Global Environment Outlook (GEO) report, which is produced by 200 researchers for the UN Environment Program, said the climate crisis, destruction of nature and pollution could no longer be seen as simply environmental crises. "They are all undermining our economy, food security, water security, human health and they are also [national] security issues, leading to conflict in many parts of the world," said Prof Robert Watson, the co-chair of the assessment. [...] The GEO report is comprehensive -- 1,100 pages this year -- and is usually accompanied by a summary for policymakers, which is agreed by all the world's countries. However, strong objections by countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Turkey and Argentina to references to fossil fuels, plastics, reduced meat in diets and other issues meant no agreement was reached this time. [...] The GEO report emphasized that the costs of action were much less than the costs of inaction in the long term, and estimated the benefits from climate action alone would be worth $20 trillion a year by 2070 and $100 trillion by 2100. "We need visionary countries and private sector [companies] to recognize they will make more profit by addressing these issues rather than ignoring them," Watson said. [...] One of the biggest issues was the $45 trillion a year in environmental damage caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas, and the pollution and destruction of nature caused by industrial agriculture, the report said. The food system carried the largest costs, at $20 trillion, with transport at $13 trillion and fossil-fuel powered electricity at $12 trillion. These costs -- called externalities by economists -- must be priced into energy and food to reflect their real price and shift consumers towards greener choices, Watson said: "So we need social safety nets. We need to make sure that the poorest in society are not harmed by an increase in costs." The report suggests measures such as a universal basic income, taxes on meat and subsidies for healthy, plant-based foods. There were also about $1.5 trillion in environmentally harmful subsidies to fossil fuels, food and mining, the report said. These needed to be removed or repurposed, it added. Watson noted that wind and solar energy was cheaper in many places but held back by vested interests in fossil fuel. The climate crisis may be even worse than thought, he said: "We are likely to be underestimating the magnitude of climate change," with global heating probably at the high end of the projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Removing fossil fuel subsidies could cut emissions by a third, the report said.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

10 Dec 2025 3:30am GMT

OpenAI Joins the Linux Foundation's New Agentic AI Foundation

OpenAI, alongside Anthropic and Block, have launched the Agentic AI Foundation under the Linux Foundation, describing it as a neutral home for standards as agentic systems move into real production. It may sound well-meaning, but Slashdot reader and NERDS.xyz founder BrianFagioli isn't buying the narrative. In a report for NERDS.xyz, Fagioli writes: Instead of opening models, training data, or anything that would meaningfully shift power toward the community, the companies involved are donating lightweight artifacts like AGENTS.md, MCP, and goose. They're useful, but they're also the safest, least threatening pieces of their ecosystem to "open." From where I sit, it looks like a strategic attempt to lock in influence over emerging standards before truly open projects get a chance to define the space. I see the entire move as smoke and mirrors. With regulators paying closer attention and developer trust slipping, creating a Linux Foundation directed fund gives these companies convenient cover to say they're being transparent and collaborative. But nothing about this structure forces them to share anything substantial, and nothing about it changes the closed nature of their core technology. To me, it looks like Big Tech trying to set the rules of the game early, using the language of openness without actually embracing it. Slashdot readers have seen this pattern before, and this one feels no different.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

10 Dec 2025 2:02am GMT

09 Dec 2025

feedArs Technica

Over 250 people quarantined in South Carolina as measles outbreak rages

16 cases are linked to a church, which followed exposures at four schools last week.

09 Dec 2025 10:34pm GMT

Big Tech joins forces with Linux Foundation to standardize AI agents

The Agentic AI Foundation launches to support MCP, AGENTS.md, and goose.

09 Dec 2025 9:08pm GMT

feedOSnews

What do Linux kernel version numbers mean?

If you're old enough, you no doubt remember that up until the 2.6.0 release of the Linux kernel, an odd number after the first version number indicated a pre-release, development version of the kernel. Even though this scheme was abandoned with the 2.6.0 release in 2003 and since then every single release has been a stable release, it seems the ghosts of this old versioning scheme still roam the halls, because prominent Linux kernel developer Greg Kroah-Hartman just published an explainer about Linux kernel versions. Despite having a stable release model and cadence since December 2003, Linux kernel version numbers seem to baffle and confuse those that run across them, causing numerous groups to mistakenly make versioning statements that are flat out false. So let's go into how this all works in detail. ↫ Greg Kroah-Hartman I genuinely find it difficult to imagine what could possibly be unclear about Linux kernel version numbers. The Linux kernel uses a very generic major.minor scheme, but that's not where the problems lie - it's the actual development process of each of these numbered release that's a bit more complex. This is where we have to talk about things like the roughly 10-week release cycle, containing a 2-week merge window, as well as Torvalds handing off the stable branch to the stable kernel maintainers. The other oddity is when the major version number gets incremented - the first number in the version number. There's no real method to this, as Kroah-Hartman admits Torvalds increments this number whenever the remaining numbers get too high and unwieldy to deal with. Very practical, but it does mean that going from, say, 5.x to 6.x doesn't really imply there's any changes in there that are any bigger or more disruptive than when going from 6.8.x to 6.9.x or whatever. There's a few more important details in here, of course, like where LTS releases come from, but that's really it - nothing particularly groundbreaking or confusing.

09 Dec 2025 8:43pm GMT

feedArs Technica

Supreme Court appears likely to approve Trump’s firing of FTC Democrat

Conservative justices seem ready to back Trump control of independent agencies.

09 Dec 2025 6:53pm GMT

08 Dec 2025

feedOSnews

Microsoft will allow you to remove “AI” actions from Windows 11’s context menus

With the current, rapidly deteriorating state of the Windows operating system, you have to take the small wins you can get: Microsoft is now offering the option of removing "AI" actions from Windows 11's context menus. buried deep in the Windows 11 Insider Preview Build 26220.7344 release notes, there's this nugget: If there are no available or enabled AI Actions, this section will no longer show in the context menu. ↫ Windows Insider Preview release notes If you then go to Settings > Apps > Actions and uncheck all the "AI" actions, the entire submenu in Windows 11's context menus will vanish. While this is great news for those Windows users who don't want to be bothered by all the "AI" nonsense, I wish Microsoft would just give users a proper way to edit the context menu that doesn't involve third party hackery. KDE's Dolphin file manager gives me full control over what does and does not appear in its context menu, and I can't imagine living without this functionality - there's so many file-related operations I never use, and having them clutter up the context menu is annoying and just slows me down. There's more substantial and important changes in this Insider Preview Build too, most notably the rollout of the Update Orchestration Platform, which should make downloading and installing application updates less cumbersome, but since it's a new feature, application won't support it right away. This release also brings the new Windows MIDI Services, and Microsoft hopes this will improve the experience for musicians using MIDI 1.0 or MIDI 2.0 on Windows. There's a slew of smaller changes, too, of course. I'm not exactly sure when these new features will make their way to production installations - who does, honestly, with Microsoft's convoluted release processes - but I hope it's sooner rather than later.

08 Dec 2025 12:08pm GMT

The anatomy of a macOS application

When Mac OS X was designed, it switched to the bundle structure inherited from NeXTSTEP. Instead of this multitude of resources, apps consisted of a hierarchy of directories containing files of executable code, and those with what had in Mac OS been supporting resources. Those app bundles came to adopt a standard form, shown below. ↫ Howard Oakley A short, but nonetheless informative overview of the structure of a macOS application. I'm sure most people on OSNews are aware that a macOS application is a bundle, which is effectively a glorified directory containing a variety of files and subdirectories that together make up the application. I haven't used macOS in a while, but I think you can right-click on an application and open it as a folder to dig around inside of it. I'm trying to remember from my days as a Mac OS X user - 15-20 years ago - if there was ever a real need to do so, but I'm sure there were a few hacks you could do by messing around with the files inside of application bundles. These days, perhaps with all the code-signing, phoning-home to Apple, and other security trickery going on, such acts are quite frowned upon. Does making any otherwise harmless changes inside an application bundle set off a ton of alarm bells in macOs these days?

08 Dec 2025 11:52am GMT

24 Nov 2025

feedPlanet Arch Linux

Misunderstanding that “Dependency” comic

Over the course of 2025, every single major cloud provider has failed. In June, Google Cloud had issues taking down Cloud Storage for many users. In late October, Amazon Web Services had a massive outage in their main hub, us-east-1, affecting many services as well as some people's beds. A little over a week later Microsoft Azure had a [widespread outage][Azure outage] that managed to significantly disrupt train service in the Netherlands, and probably also things that matter. Now last week, Cloudflare takes down large swaths of the internet in a way that causes non-tech people to learn Cloudflare exists. And every single time, people share that one XKCD comic.

24 Nov 2025 12:00am GMT

18 Nov 2025

feedPlanet Arch Linux

Self-hosting DNS for no fun, but a little profit!

After Gandi was bought up and started taking extortion level prices for their domains I've been looking for an excuse to migrate registrar. Last week I decided to bite the bullet and move to Porkbun as I have another domain renewal coming up. However after setting up an account and paying for the transfer for 4 domains, I realized their DNS services are provided by Cloudflare! I personally do not use Cloudflare, and stay far away from all of their products for various reasons.

18 Nov 2025 12:00am GMT

06 Nov 2025

feedPlanet Arch Linux

waydroid >= 1.5.4-3 update may require manual intervention

The waydroid package prior to version 1.5.4-2 (including aur/waydroid) creates Python byte-code files (.pyc) at runtime which were untracked by pacman. This issue has been fixed in 1.5.4-3, where byte-compiling these files is now done during the packaging process. As a result, the upgrade may conflict with the unowned files created in previous versions. If you encounter errors like the following during the update:

error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) waydroid: /usr/lib/waydroid/tools/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-313.pyc exists in filesystem waydroid: /usr/lib/waydroid/tools/actions/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-313.pyc exists in filesystem waydroid: /usr/lib/waydroid/tools/actions/__pycache__/app_manager.cpython-313.pyc exists in filesystem

You can safely overwrite these files by running the following command: pacman -Syu --overwrite /usr/lib/waydroid/tools/\*__pycache__/\*

06 Nov 2025 12:00am GMT