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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Sorry guys, but you are full of shit (Score 1) 533

How much video are you streaming? I've found very little if any issue with 10mbps on my home line, and I find that every once in a while that I'm streaming to my living room, the basement play room, a 2DS, and 2-3 computers simultaneously. I might not be streaming 1080p to every device, Heck, 1080p is over rated. Give me 480p or 720p as long as it's 16:9. The only time I notice a significant issue is when someone logs on with their un-synced phone, and steal all the upload bandwidth sending all their photos to Google.

Comment Why aren't there versions (Score 4, Interesting) 533

Why all this silliness on a moving target. Much like USB 1, 2, and 3, network 'Category' notation and in a human-oriented alternative to the acronym soups for SCSI, PCI and other communication protocols WHY THE HELL AREN'T WE PUSHING FOR a standard that can keep pace and inform users trivially/ steadily:

  • B1 - roadband 1 - More than 250Kbps down, 150Kbps up.
  • B2 - Broadband 2 - More than 4Mbps down, 500Kbps up
  • B3 - Broadband 3 - More than 10Mbps down, 2Mbps up
  • ... etc, as time dictates.

Or some other ranges. I don't care about these specific numbers. I just hate that an ISP thinks they deserve to control the definition.

Comment Re:That guy just wasted his time (Score 2) 314

By what strange theory does Slackware support systemd? And how is the conversation being "held back"? At least on LQ, I think it's been discussed to death to the point where there's really nothing new to say about it.

I can say one thing for certain: you do not know that anything concerning systemd in Slackware is likely or not. Hell, *I* don't.

Comment Re:Competition is good. (Score 1) 211

In my previous post, I believe I clarified that I did mean command of LEO militarily, and I wrote it because it seemed to me that some confused the leadership of the Soviet Union with flower in their hair peaceniks who would never hurt a fly. Given that mindset, I didn't see it as a tautology.

Comment Re:so the T-1000 shouldn't have frozen? (Score 1) 182

OK, for starters, I also groaned about the absurdity of a freezy T-1000. From day 1, that's bugged me. But there's a LOT of bad physics and bad biology going on in the movie. But the T-1000 being 77K? That seems unlikely due to the physics of the rest of the show:
  • A system at 77 degrees kelvin would need a massive, elaborate heat-exchange system to maintain that temperature throughout everything. If this were a design aspect, it would need even more elaborate systems to prevent failure due to heat/fire. Energy consumption for cooling is one of the most inefficient mechanisms, so this would also bump up their magical-power-generator demands a few notches. But hey, what's impossible times ten instead of merely impossible energy storage and heat exchange.
  • More importantly, every time the robot had steady/sustained contact with other mechanical devices / systems, they'd have extreme-cold failure modes. The throttle and brake grips on the motorcycle. His 'not-really-boots' on anything they touched (foot pedals). Firearms (especially the automatic actions) get sluggish and failure-prone around 20-below F, which is about 150 degrees kelvin hotter than you're suggesting. Anything that didn't have specialized extreme-cold lubricants, or (worse) did have residual-water, would start to seize up. Rubber would become brittle. Explosive activity would cause cracking: guns might crack more with each gunshot (at areas in contact with the T-1000) until they rather explosively failed.

Incidentally, liquid-metal self-modifying systems, like the monster in 'The Thing', are just far enough beyond science fiction to be called fantasy. Laws of information storage density pretty much make molecules capable of cataloging a myriad of design specs large and complex enough that they'll be brittle, and the resulting creature would likely be designed to be able to hemorrhage off damaged cells (and shrink) during emergencies and reacquire material slowly later. Under steady gunfire or in a fire, these things would either cruft up fast or steadily get smaller faster than they could assemble replacement molecules

(relevant cite: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo... "Although single origins are sufficient to direct the replication of bacte-rial and viral genomes, multiple origins are needed to replicate the much larger genomes of eukaryotic cells within a reasonable period of time. For example, the entire genome of E. coli (4 Ã-- 106 base pairs) is replicated from a single origin in approximately 30 minutes. If mammalian genomes (3 Ã-- 109 base pairs) were replicated from a single origin at the same rate, DNA replication would require about 3 weeks (30,000 minutes). The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the rate of DNA replication in mammalian cells is actually about tenfold lower than in E. coli, possibly as a result of the packaging of eukaryotic DNA in chromatin. Nonetheless, the genomes of mammalian cells are typically replicated within a few hours, necessitating the use of thousands of replication origins.").

So, new material can't just be instantly assimilated, so the monsters in both should get smaller... and smaller... and smaller, if fought steadily. So... let's make the biophysics for this problem plausible: A few hits on T-1000 by gunfire and rocket launchers, he splatters everywhere, and a T-900 marches at you. Then a T-800, etc. At T-25 size, he jumps into an air duct and runs away. Two weeks later, he resurfaces full-size. Meanwhile, that splatter residue has a few working molecules that have slithered out of a crack between floor and wall to a nearby desk in the Precinct, been ingested as part of Officer Stadanko's jelly donut, and he's not answering phone calls. Yep: the Thing, but with a three-week infection period like Ebola. Much harder to hunt. So, if mechanical or biological generation WAS possible, and constrained to sane physics to where steady, sustained significant damage had an effect, you'd think either of those monsters would have had some guidance that nondetection and stealth were more important than speed. They didn't need to rush.

Comment Re:It's amazing (Score 5, Insightful) 199

This.. Amending the Constitution means they are abiding by it and admitting it is authoritative. Without amending it, it means they are attempting to subvert it.

The fact that the federal, state, and local governments are going out of their way to create all sorts of circumstances where the Bill of Rights are ignored shows that there is a widespread attempt at completely removing the Constitutional framework. Peoples' rights are only violated when those rights are needed most.

Comment Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. (Score 1) 91

I pick **D** -- Any or all of the above, as deemed appropriate by a Public Utilities Commission and economists / engineers they supervise.

We do this. A LOT. Public Utility regulatory bodies have MORE THAN A CENTURY OF PRACTICE IN NEARLY EVERY STATE, in multiple similar infrastructure types. Stop pretending this is impossible. It's a shitty straw man invented by the same deregulatory wonks that got us into this mess in the first place.

I'm neither Socialist nor Libertarian. Both are false utopias with no shining example. I like REGULATED MARKETS. CUZ THAT SHIT JUST WORKS.

Comment Re:Competition is good. (Score 1) 211

"plant the Hammer and Sickle flag on the surface that will enslave the world in Communism"

Command of space ( not necessarily the moon, but earth orbit for certain ) would be a huge strategic and tactical advantage.
If the Soviet Union had managed LEO or the moon, do you think they would have not used it?

Finland, 1939
Poland, 1939
China, 1941, 1945
Support for NKorea, 1950
Hungary, 1956
Support for NVietnam, 1961
Czechoslovakia, 1968
Afghanistan, 1979
One can argue Crimea, 2014, but that isnt "Soviet Union".

Comment Re:Competition is good. (Score 1) 211

"But those developments were still the result of commercial companies"

At least with respect to WWII, commercial companies produced the aircraft, but it was military and government leaders seeing a possible need for more advanced aircraft that lead to the advancements. With the possible exception of the B-17, industry was asked for the advancements, mainly to meet what the Germans ( and English ) were doing ( what the Japanese had managed came as a sharp surprise )

Slashdot Top Deals

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...