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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score 1) 351 351

I could see why they might do that, which is the same reason why jumbo frames only begin to be practical on gigabit networks. (There's just too much latency on anything slower than gig.)

Then again, 40gbit is typically optical, so there's practically no noise to begin with.

Comment Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score 5, Informative) 351 351

The reason why it's not there is because ethernet is supposed to be just a dead simple layer 2 multi-access data protocol. Adding that kind of shit just contributes to latency (any kind of error correction involves additional parity bits and more processing.) And yes, I'll grant you that the added data and processing for error correction is tiny, but multiply that by a billion in large scale networks and you can see where there's a problem

If you need error correction, use UDP and handle it at the application layer, that way you aren't negatively impacting every other application that doesn't need error correction.

Comment Re:Biohacking? (Score 2) 66 66

Basically. The food religion says GMO is bad until one of them happens to need insulin and also happens to be allergic to "natural" cow insulin, then GMO produced humulin (secreted by a genetically modified e. coli bacterium to be chemically similar to human insulin) is a miracle.

Which by the way, this particular GMO has been in use for 32 years now.

Comment Re:Um... you're not nearly cynical enough (Score 1) 352 352

That's got to be the new race card these days. Don't like what they say? Call them a racist. Still don't like what they say? Mention fox news Nevermind if the person is racist or even watches a minute of fox news, we've got to make them look bad no matter how correct they might be.

Comment Re:Well, sure, but... (Score 1) 292 292 really misunderstand libertarianism, that's more along the lines of fascism, only you added the word liberty to the end.

I'm a libertarian because I'm not even certain if I know what's best for myself, let alone everybody else. So I don't believe that I (or the government) should be telling everybody else how to run their lives.

Comment Re:Well, sure, but... (Score 1) 292 292

There is plenty of room on the label for a tinyurl.

Believe me I'd love it if they did this, but what you're asking for is to convince the entire food industry to do that.

I'll tell you what, pick a random food company of your choice, say frito lay, and write a letter to their CEO asking him to add that. Your letter will probably get lost in the noise. But suppose you rallied a big campaign for that purpose. Now guess what? You've got to do it with every other food manufacturer too. And there are thousands of them.

Believe me, this isn't anywhere near as easy as it sounds. I've been dealing with this problem for years now. Short of an act of congress, I'm afraid it just aint happening.

The actual label could then be simplified to a really simple "UNHEALTHY/HEALTH" number going from 1..10 as proposed previously to simplify things for the 95% of people who aren't going to read anything more detailed than that anyway.

Honestly, that kind of system wouldn't be effective at all. Not only is it highly subjective, but it also doesn't take into account what else you've eaten in the day.

Say for example that you picked a random food that most people consider very healthy to eat, such as wild Alaskan salmon. Such a system would rate it very highly, but that doesn't mean you can just eat salmon all day and meet all of your nutritional needs. Salmon alone could certainly make you last a lot longer than just about every other one food you could pick out, but it's not a good idea to eat only that, or eat only any of one given thing.

However, if this is what you're looking for, there's already a company that offers a program like that, called fooducate. You just scan a UPC code and they give you a healthy or not rating. But based on what I know about nutrition, I disagree with most of their ratings.

For example, they'll downgrade any food that has any kind of coloring or dye, and they'll downgrade food that they believe is environmentally unfriendly, regardless of how it affects YOUR nutrition. They also upgrade food that is organic, even though no research anywhere says organic food is healthier.

Sure, they could disregard these things, but I strongly suspect that their app wouldn't sell worth a damn, because the people who use it the most are food religion types.

For people like you - I'd imagine that using a phone to get vitally important data that would never fit on a label is less of an imposition.

I've never called them. Usually I just go to their website, look for a contact email, and ask them that way.

Comment Re:There is a slight difference (Score 1) 292 292

but repeating the often trotted "breeding/wild mutation is the same as GMO" is stupid.

At what point did I ever say it was the same? The answer is, I didn't.

to swallow that you can breed in nature fish protein into tobaccoe plant

No GMO food actually does this. Most of them are constructed from the field of proteomics, and are usually inspired by genes of another organism, but aren't a direct copy. It's synthetic.

Those anecdotes where you've heard of this happening are geneticists swapping genes out from one species to another experimentally in order to determine how those genes work. These experiments don't end up on your plate.

and anybody can see that such very long term adaptation has a different impact on an ecosystem than immediate gene change

Actually this occurs in nature all the time, and very often. In fact the human genome itself carries some 100,000 incomplete genes from other organisms. Three of those genes are complete and at least one of them is critical to our survival. Namely, the gene for the human placenta didn't naturally evolve in humans; it came from some other animal via "natural" viral infection.

Please just don't. Refrain in future. You are just making it more difficult for us to convince the GMO fearing when you spread such obvious bad comparison.

I never made the comparisons you're accusing me of. It sounds like you're arguing just to argue.

Comment Re:The question is (Score 1) 292 292

Because the vast, vast, majority of those alterations are silent or non-sense modifications? Those 200 bases that get altered in GMO absolutely have an effect, aimed towards a specific outcome.

True, 90% of all mutations are benign, but you're missing a very important detail:

10% of these mutations make material changes. Given that there hundreds to thousands of genes in a given plant, you're invariably going to have MANY changes. So yeah, what I said still very much applies.

Comment Re:The question is (Score 3, Interesting) 292 292

Ok let's put things into perspective for a minute:

Every time a plant breeds naturally, there are some millions of DNA nucleotides that are changed as a result of that process, and it happens in ways that are entirely unpredictable and unknown.

Yet in GMO, you're making a very deliberate change to some 200 (or less) nucleotides, and you know EXACTLY what that change does, because you've already observed its results before putting it on the market.

Why is it that I'm supposed to be afraid of the known very few GMO changes and not be afraid of the unknown thousands of changes in the natural process?

Comment Re:Well, sure, but... (Score 3, Interesting) 292 292

Being the libertarian that I am, normally I would be on board with that, except for one major problem: There's only so much room on the food labels, and there's so much other important information that could be put there instead, but isn't.

Take me for example: I have IgA nephropathy and am in stage 4 CKD. I have to be extra careful about how much potassium and phosphorus I consume. Yet most labels don't show potassium, and hardly any show phosphorus (at best you get a %DV count, which gives you a very poor idea of its actual contents.) The manufacturers don't have a problem giving you these figures if you ask, but they don't put them on the labels because the package is only so large.

A complete nutrition information chart given to the manufacturers from a food lab is very lengthy, and no food label on just about anything would be able to accomodate it all, so they typically only put on their labels what the FDA says they must.

That said, I'd be pissed as hell if the FDA started requiring immaterial facts such as a GMO label that affects nobody one way or another, but ignored electrolytes that can kill people like me.

How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz