Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Reflected in language? (Score 4, Informative) 81

The book "Alex's Adventures in Numberland" by Alex Bellos talks about this. There is a difference in the way we treat numbers 1, 2, 3, possibly 4, compared to numbers 5 and above. The author suggests this is reflected in number systems. Roman numerals start I II III and there are two alternatives for four, IIII and IV. In Chinese too the first three numbers are groups of lines before it changes with four. Our Indio-Arabic glyphs for 1, 2, 3 also originate as one, two, or three lines joined up.

I would suggest that case endings in Slavonic languages might be another indicator. For two, three, or four of something you use the genitive singular (roughly: "three of apple") but then for five or more the genitive plural is used instead. (Things may get muddy when dealing with compound numbers like forty-two where you could use the same case ending as for two.)

What other languages or writing systems have a change between 2,3,4 and larger numbers?

Comment Re:Previous attempt at this lasted 6 years (Score 1) 109

I was assuming it was based essentially on existing digital camera hardware with an extra authentication or signing step at the point the image is written to storage. That's how these products have worked up to now. Of course if the camera manufacturers are investing big bucks in developing a secure system from the ground up, my assumptions are wrong. But I don't see any indication that's what is being offered here.

Comment Re: Previous attempt at this lasted 6 years (Score 1) 109

That's right, I am assuming the connection from the sensor to the rest of the camera electronics is not part of the secure system. I think that's a fair assumption, as CCD or CMOS sensors are relatively simple devices and don't have room or time for cryptographic processing at the moment the image is recorded and read out. Even if not, the point remains that you could leave the electronic parts untouched and just project in the image you want to record.

Comment Re:Previous attempt at this lasted 6 years (Score 1) 109

But you don't have to crack the TPM or the secure enclave. You just have to replace the camera sensor with a custom device that outputs the image you want, and if necessary set the camera's date and time or fake some GPS signals. You could even keep the hardware untouched and use a slide duplicator attachment to make an authenticated copy of any image you want.

Comment This is why we need to look out there (Score 1) 30

Some folks think that we know everything about the laws of physics, and what might exist out in the universe. This is an example of an extremely cool phenomenon that I don't think anyone would have expected, or really even dreamed of before we saw it ourselves. We don't know the smallest percentage about what is out there. We need to keep looking, seeking, exploring.

Comment Why? (Score 2) 47

The whole thing about the early termination fee is because a contract is being broken. I know, contracts mean nothing these days because... who reads those things anyways? The company is giving a discount if ones agrees to stay with the company for a specified term. The company knows they have the customer for that period of time, so they cut a deal. One could opt into the month-to-month contract, but it costs more. All this rule will do is remove the discount for long-term commitments, which means we will all pay for the month-to-month pricing.

Comment Drug addiction is a medical condition... right? (Score 2) 265

For many years advocates of more liberal drug policy have argued that addiction should be treated as a medical condition. And we're always told that mental illness should be seen as just another illness -- you wouldn't stigmatize or blame someone for having a broken arm, so you shouldn't do so if they are schizophrenic.

Well, isn't this the logical outcome? If a medical condition is severe enough to destroy your quality of life, and it isn't curable, then in some countries you have the option of assisted suicide. Why would you refuse that to someone whose condition is being addicted, if that's just another medical condition?

Comment Re:Roundabouts (Score 1) 93

Hmm, you say a roundabout takes more space than a 4-way light *for the same amount of traffic*.

If that's true, it implies that roundabouts aren't that good after all? Since I thought their advantage was handling a higher volume of traffic. Like for example, if you put a four-way intersection with traffic lights it can handle an average flow of ten cars per minute, but a roundabout could take twenty cars per minute. In other words, greater throughput. (I don't know what the true numbers are.)

Perhaps the throughput is the same but a roundabout reduces the average time for a car to clear the junction -- in other words, same throughput but improved latency?

Comment The moral of the story (Score 4, Insightful) 81

So the moral of the story is early buyers will pay full price while getting a buggy, unbalanced, unfinished product. Meanwhile, those who wait will generally get discounts, see fewer bugs, and more polished content.

This is why I almost never buy anything as soon as it's released.

Comment Re:Uh wut? (Score 4, Insightful) 35

I do remember back in the day Google was known for its contrarian approach. Consultants would tell you that for an "enterprise" data centre you needed expensive servers, redundant power supplies on each unit, RAID on each unit in case a disk failed, ECC memory and so on. But Google decided to get the reliability at the large scale, throwing together large numbers of cheap systems with off-the-shelf parts and if one of them fails, well you just leave it there and use the remaining ones.

Nowdays it's conventional wisdom that servers should be "cattle, not pets". Perhaps in even in 1999 the smart people knew that. Perhaps I am setting up a straw man with these "consultants" who wanted an expensive, gold-plated approach. For sure it would have happened anyway without Google. But this guy did have to swim against the current.

Comment Re:Be wary of Apple here. (Score 1) 97

Typically, for small devices at least, the wall charger has a USB output and then you use a USB cable to connect it to your device. The device might have mini-USB or micro-USB or USB-C or Apple's Lightning. So you need a variety of different cables. Standardizing on a single connector means you don't need so many cables but in practice I don't think it wiill reduce the number of power bricks since USB was already a de facto standard there. And yes, there are different kinds of USB and not all the bricks will deliver the same power output, but this isn't really an issue for phones, and I think that standardizing the connector doesn't really change it.

Comment Re: ...oxidizing methane to CO2 (Score 1) 55

The reality is that scientists do indeed have common sense, but they also are smart enough to know that its not always right, so they verify things, note when the intuitive answer is incorrect, and then dig deeper.

Almost but not quite. You left out a few relevant factors.

Personal bias - despite attempts to eradicate it, it still exists. A scientist who has their reputation staked on a particular theory or outcome will tend to favor that outcome, disregard outcomes that don't agree with their position, or both. The recent LK-99 "room temp superconductor" is an example of this.

Funding bias - Scientists don't work for free, and even if they did, research itself is an expensive endeavor. This requires funding from external sources, usually government but sometimes major industries contribute as well. Both these patrons tend to fund research that confirms whatever policy or product they wish to push. Likewise, funding for other things either doesn't get funded or could disqualify you for future funding.

Community peer pressure - Despite the stereotype, contemporary science is largely that of conformity. Mavericks are generally frowned upon, laughed at, or ostracized. This has historical precedence. Major luminaries like Einstein, Bohr, etc. were regarded as crackpots when they first challenged the establishment before they were recognized as prophets of truth. Very few people have the courage to stand against such as this, hence conformity and groupthink are more normal than most people suspect or are willing to admit.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android

Working...