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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Didn't have much to give, took a lot. (Score 5, Interesting) 315

by Bo'Bob'O (#49558129) Attached to: Google Insiders Talk About Why Google+ Failed

It was clear from the start that what it wanted was your information, they didn't even try to hide it with their real name policy. And for the trouble they didn't really give much more then their competitors were already giving.

Yes, I think it was better from face book, but it didn't seem to have any care for any sort of privacy. So if you are concerned about your private details? Too bad. If you are in an online community that you don't care to share your personal information with? Too bad. Teenagers didn't like it, want to post where your parents won't see? Too bad.

They mentioned that they made a service that was for Google, but not for it's customers, I don't think they really still understood how deep that went. The fact that they started forcing people to join only reenforced the reality of the situation, turning something that had potential into joke.

Maybe someday someone will build a site for people the in the modern internet age, and not just for the corporation that runs it. G+ wasn't even a compromise between the two.

Comment: Re:Read "Outliers" (Score 1) 385

by Bo'Bob'O (#49501795) Attached to: Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than a Boon?

it's not a very popular view, particularly in the USA, as it goes against the whole "anyone can make it big" concept.

I think that is largely a mischaracterization, both by the well meaning and those looking to discredit certain notions.

I think that firstly, people by a wide margin believe that people should not be -denied- a opportunity. Particularly for arbitrary, non-relevant factors.

Secondly, many people also believe that we can, as a civilization, create opportunity. What efforts go into creating those opportunities are paid back by the percentage of them who can use those opportunities to excel.

The second one is the largest sticking point, because how to foster those opportunities is widely debated. Some feel that the best is a wide-open field. Others think that the field advantages some of those arbitrary, non-relevant factors (particularly socioeconomic one) and thus the field needs to be leveled.

  It's not a debate that I mean to stir up 3-deep in a Slashdot thread, but just to say that the vast majority of people at most places on the political spectrum agree: Those that have the ability to succeed, should have the opportunity to. It's just the mechanics they disagree on that are sometimes, sadly, mutually exclusive.

Comment: The third factor (Score 5, Insightful) 385

by Bo'Bob'O (#49500291) Attached to: Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than a Boon?

I surely wouldn't qualify as one of the 'termites' in the study, but there still things in my life I take to quickly. There is a third metric that I am in my coming to respect even more: motivation and inspiration.

There is a big difference between having the ability to do something, having the need to do something, and having a want and drive to do something. That last one seems to get people much further then being at the very top in intelligence. It also provides a framework of interaction and social connection between peers, if it is truly a passion.

So maybe it takes being the best and brightest to be first chair violinist in a prestigious symphony, but being brilliant alone won't get you there. Meanwhile hundreds of others have a long and successful career they make out of their perseverance.

Comment: Re:And this is news... why? (Score 1) 38

by Bo'Bob'O (#49410447) Attached to: Forking Away: OnePlus Introduces Android-Based OxygenOS

Considering the state of Android from the majority of android manufacturers, a new non-google phone without the bloat IS news.

Honestly even though I have been an android user since version 1.0, I tend not to recommend them to people just because of the crap-ware manufactures put on.

The same problem with windows vs mac. I don't think windows is really harder or easier then the mac anymore, but the hours of uninstalling bloatware from a pre-built windows machine is painful for even someone who is techsavy.

Comment: Re:Missing the point. (Score 1) 330

by Bo'Bob'O (#49405905) Attached to: Inexpensive Electric Cars May Arrive Sooner Than You Think

It's absolutely true that there are things that electrics are not suited for. Just as any car has it's gives and takes whether you use a car, truck,van, or whatever.

But I'm not sure what you call 'the fringes'. A huge population of people only drive a few dozen miles a day, then park their car at home over night. Almost anyone who lives with a spouse also probably is in a household with two or more cars as it is.

I don't think I know anyone who goes cross country more then once a year. The only people that even come close already own two cars, and one of them is almost always just a commuter.

So yes, maybe it's not for you, or the circle of people you know, but there is a massive segment of people who an electric would make an economical, low maintenance car for if the entry price came down.

Comment: Satisfaction (Score 1) 139

by Bo'Bob'O (#49376329) Attached to: IT Jobs With the Best (and Worst) ROI

For some people a satisfying job is an important part of their overall happiness, so even if they might be making less, still might be more fulfilled by their lives.

Of course for other people the job is just 8 hours a day they can easily partition from the rest of their lives, and don't have any such concerns.

There is no good or bad about one or the other, it's just how some people's natures are different. It is though, too important of a metric to be left out of an article like this. Graphic designers might be a good example of this. Some may be making less, but for them it might be more valuable on the balance for their mental state then the money.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 306

by Bo'Bob'O (#49361645) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

I'm going to assume that you don't think the current lineup on either side is particularly satisfying, because I can't honestly believe that you find any current candidate that compelling. You look at who may be the next US president and then look at the potential pool of people that -could- be and just think, "Wow, people are stupid." And maybe some of the choices by some of them are pretty dumb, but I think you have to look at just what is going on in the big picture of the US political system.

Having a winner take all system, means that we have a first-past-the-post system. Voting for a third party candidate means that people on a similar part of the political spectrum are diluting their vote if they vote for one or more candidates, and thus, must get in under the banner of a candidate that can win a simple majority vote. This by it's nature reduces the political process to two parties.

So despite the broad spectrum of issues, politics, and views on personal leadership, you have to vote tactically -or you will lose-. Occasionally a third party rises, but it either swamps over another party, or the established parties shifts platforms in order to pull people from the up-commer. The two big parties know this, and they put massive resources into making sure that they have far greater ability to field candidates then any third party might, only adapting their platforms when they have to. This is also why elections seem continualy so close, the parties will one issue at a time take on views in order to slowly ratchet voters one way, then he other party ratchet voters another. Voters don't elect for issues, parties have issues to gain voters.

It's absolutely, positively broken. Even if we did manage to develop a third party strong enough to take on the incumbents, it would quickly turn back into a two party system as one party would get crushed as people with opposing opinions flock to the other party to try to challenge it.

Unless somehow some outsider manages to take the stage and get people on board to truly change this one thing, I sadly, don't see any way out of it, and that outsider is surely not me. I'm neither charismatic or 'electable'. The multibillion dollar buisness of the established parties surely don't want to see it change. So yes, in 2016, I'm going to have to vote for one of the two choices given to me as the lesser evil, and i have no power to change that.

Comment: Re:Lack of funding (Score 1) 89

Or a way to get this supposed reality TV from mars to earth. Much less in any way 'live', which was supposedly central to all this.

And they aren't even talking to the people actually doing this, despite that even 10 years from now this will still all be new, if not prototype technology. All their promotional materials still show what's basically scaled up gen 1 Dragon spacercraft. Meanwhile SpaceX has changed plans, shifted it's roadmap, yet aren't in any sort of talks with SpaceX.

Comment: Re:Time Capsule (Score 1) 169

by Bo'Bob'O (#49228277) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Video Storage For Time Capsule?

I know this was in jest, but it might not be quite as crazy as it sounds. If there is any electronic interface format that we are using today that will outlast the rest, and maintain backwards compatibility, it's going to be Ethernet. So while there likely won't be any equipment directly compatible, there would probably still be some around and operational. Consider the systems that run B52s, for instance.

So if there is space to spare besides the obvious choice of film, some sort of NAS device could be an option, and itself an interesting thing to find in a time capsule.

Science

Scientists Insert a Synthetic Memory Into the Brain of a Sleeping Mouse 111

Posted by Soulskill
from the best-party-you-never-had dept.
the_newsbeagle writes: Scientists are learning how to insert fake memories into the brain via precise electrical stimulation (abstract). In the latest experiment, they gave sleeping mice a synthetic memory that linked a particular location in a test chamber to a pleasurable sensation. (At least they gave the mice a nice memory.)

The researchers first recorded the electrical signals from the mice's brains while the mice were awake and exploring the test chamber, until the researchers identified patterns of activity associated with a certain location. Then, when the mice slept, the researchers watched for those neural patterns to be replayed, indicating that the mice were consolidating the memory of that location. At that moment, they zapped a reward center of the mice's brains. When the mice awoke and went back into the chamber, they hung around that reward-associated location, presumably expecting a dose of feel-good.

The trouble with the rat-race is that even if you win, you're still a rat. -- Lily Tomlin

Working...