Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: The internet-of-things is here to stay. (Score 1) 31 31

The internet-of-things is here to stay.

To the contrary, in my experience most things that have a catchy name before they are implemented go nowhere. Multicasting, Named Data Networking, Internet of Things, OLP, Web Ontology, Neural Networks, etc. The project is more focused in sounding trending than in finding reasons why things want to access the internet (presumably so that your toaster can watch youtube videos while you are away?)

Successful projects usually start from the other end. People first create a small iteration of the thing that proves the concept, it starts to catch up (fancy name might be created here but this is entirely optional) and one day you turn around and its taken over the world.

Comment: Re:Today's computer science corriculum is practica (Score 1) 139 139

Really? Maybe s/he was too busy following the latest developments on LLVM to care about how exactly routing takes place. At my uni we spent perhaps 20 min talking about this before moving on to other subjects. I can easily see someone not remembering it.

What you want is someone with a solid theoretical foundation that can google IP mask and understand it in 5 min.

Comment: Re:what is interesting is not that it won (Score 4, Interesting) 588 588

It's a basic principle of statutory interpretation that legislatures define laws by their written text.

LMFTY: It's one basic principle in English Jurisprudence, known in legal circles as "the plain meaning rule". The other two are: "the golden rule" and "the mischief rule".

The golden rule allows a judge to depart from a word's normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd result.

The mischief rule sets the court to determine the "mischief and defect" that the statute in question has set out to remedy, and what ruling would effectively implement this remedy.

When America was founded those three principles were firmly in place. Over the years the courts and the laws themselves have been moving away from that tradition, creating the (in)famous loopholes that are the bread and butter of corporate law practice.

Comment: Standard (Score 2) 136 136

In 1989 there were some rather delicate debt renegotiation talks in Washington between the Mexican government, USA and the IMF.

Every night, the Mexican chief negotiator would fly back to Mexico to debrief the president, since no other means of communication were assumed to be NSA proof.

Comment: Re:Paul Ehrlich? (Score 1) 294 294

I agree that at present we are not doing our best to have a sustainable society, but we easily could: increase recycling efforts, switch over to renewable energy sources, live in denser configurations, change diet to be less meat based.

In other words, that currently we are not living sustainably doesn't mean in the future we couldn't. There really is no solid evidence to suggest that if we put our hearts and minds to it we couldn't do it.

And you know what? we have it even better: population is likely to top at 9 billion and then start falling rapidly. See Japan where population is falling at a rate of .250K a year and likely to be aroun 30% less than present by 2060. Most other countries in the world are tracking the Japanese curve, some a mere few years behind others a couple of decades, but essentially every one is tracking it, from Germany to the fastest growing countries in Africa.

Comment: Re:Paul Ehrlich? (Score 1) 294 294

it's just not possible to sustain 15-20 billion people on Earth.

[Citation needed]

People were saying the exact same thing 70 years ago, except with "it is not possible to feed 7 billion people".

And guess what? here we are feeding all 7 billion. Just because you cannot see a way to sustain 15 billion people it doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Comment: Re:Paul Ehrlich? (Score 1) 294 294

It is clear you've reached a conclusion and will reject all evidence to the contrary: you rather go on a side tangent about the Israel-Palestinian conflict than pause and think about the main point: 50% of Israel water comes from artificial sources, up from 15% less than a decade ago.

Talk of water shortage is nonsense on the face of these figures.

Comment: Re:Paul Ehrlich? (Score 3, Informative) 294 294

We have plenty of oil, or did you miss the current drop in price? and if that wasn't enough solar continues to drop in price along an exponential curve.

As for the Israeli situation, here's the reality:

A major national effort to desalinate Mediterranean seawater and to recycle wastewater has provided the country with enough water for all its needs, even during severe droughts. More than 50 percent of the water for Israeli households, agriculture and industry is now artificially produced. [New York Times]

Comment: Re:Paul Ehrlich? (Score 3, Insightful) 294 294

I understand the term perfectly well, and the carrying capacity of the earth is at least 15 perhaps 20 billion. Currently we produce more food that we can consume. The problem is we distribute it rather badly.

In terms of water, we wast so much of it, that this is not really a problem. Call me back when we have ripped out our lawns, moved to high efficiency European washing machines, 1 gallon toilets, drip irrigation, etc. Then I'll believe your claims of water shortages.

Just because Ehrlich was wrong doesn't mean we aren't facing a crisis.

Ah crisis, the most over used word of the environmental movement. Everything is a crisis. Ebola is a crisis of a million dead with an actual final tally of thousands, rape on campus (which happens at lower rates than elsewhere) is a crisis, water "shortages" are a crisis even though Israel seems to manage fine (though not without trouble and ingenuity), population is a crisis even though most countries are moving rapidly towards below replacement fertility levels .

Comment: Re:Paul Ehrlich? (Score 3, Informative) 294 294

How much of our problems stem from overpopulation?

Almost none. Human indicators have improved markedly over the last forty years while world population doubled.

I think he was right about the dangers of overpopulation,

He was particularly wrong about this, just like other Malthusians, and just like all of them 200 years of wrong predictions have made no difference in their opinions.

Comment: Re:Mostly because our food is shit. (Score 1) 409 409

Don't tell anyone, but I'm using this web site I discovered called Google. It's full of useful tidbits like that. I don't know how it does it, but if I ask for "raw potato alkaloid" I get tens of thousands of matches including many reputable sources like FDA.

But please, I must insist, please keep this Google thing just between you and me. I'm afraid that if many more people hear about it it would become overloaded and not be there anymore.

Comment: Re:Ah baseball (Score 1) 105 105

It doesn't? Every time I try to watch a game it feels like it does: Kick the sand, scratch balls, swing bat in practice three times, step out of the box, adjust the elbow protector and step back in the box. Exciting as this sounds it gets a bit boring after the batter does for the fifth time without a single pitch being thrown.

Comment: Re:Mostly because our food is shit. (Score 1) 409 409

what else is sweet raw and right from the ground, potatoes.

DON'T. I repeat DO NOT eat raw potatoes. and I quote:

Raw potatoes contain alkaloids. You can have diarrhea, cramps and vomiting. Whereas green potatoes with lots of solanine can cause hallucinations and heart rhythm problems. And if you eat a lot of raw green potatoes, it could kill you.

The fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated from the order of space and time. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Working...