Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission + - Google targets fake "download" and "play" buttons (torrentfreak.com)

AmiMoJo writes: Google says it will go to war against the fake 'download' and 'play' buttons that attempt to deceive users on file-sharing and other popular sites. According to a new announcement from the company titled ‘No More Deceptive Download Buttons’, Google says it will expand its eight-year-old Safe Browsing initiative to target some of the problems highlighted above. “You may have encountered social engineering in a deceptive download button, or an image ad that falsely claims your system is out of date. Today, we’re expanding Safe Browsing protection to protect you from such deceptive embedded content, like social engineering ads,” the company says.

Submission + - Suicide of aging cells prolongs life span in mice (sciencemag.org)

Eloking writes: They are lurking in your heart, your liver, your kidneys, and maybe even your brain: run-down cells that could be making you age. A new study of mice shows that spurring these so-called senescent cells to self-destruct extends the animals’ lives and delays some aspects of aging.

“It’s a landmark paper,” says cell and molecular biologist Francis Rodier of the University of Montreal in Canada, who wasn’t connected to the study. “It’s providing biological evidence that senescence is involved in the aging process.”

Comment Re:A picture of our future (Score 1) 161

Doesn't really matter. When you hit your supply limits, you can only increase efficiency.

Fission is going to become the new oil eventually. It's a limited resource. Hydrogen less so, but no guarantee that we'll be able to do that efficiently on a containable scale.

From http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/introduc...

"Deuterium can be extracted from water and tritium is produced from lithium, which is found in the earth's crust. Fuel supplies will therefore last for millions of years."

Comment Re:A picture of our future (Score 1) 161

Of course, we'll need a better energy source than coal or oil if we eventually want to become completely green.

Coal and oil are both incredibly energy dense. To be self-sustaining, you'll need to use less energy more than you need to find a better power source.

Human population of growing. So no matter how efficient you become, like recycling you're only delaying the problem.

Generation IV nuclear fission power plan, nuclear fusion power plant or even space-based solar power are all green alternative that could be available within the century.

Comment A picture of our future (Score 1) 161

I love news like this one.

It may look like an economical disaster now, but this if our future. The way humanity grows, we won't be able to feed the world for another century (if I'm wrong, let's say two centuries then, doesn't matter). There's a lot of confusion about the scientific research of the environmental impact of the food production (especially meat production) but it seems far from negligible.

I've saw a Swiss design a few years ago about a self-sufficient farm skyscraper design that could produce food for 10k people. This sort of tech allows us to grow food without pesticide, without razing forest, use a lot less water and could be used anywhere on earth. Of course, we'll need a better energy source than coal or oil if we eventually want to become completely green.

Or course, it won't slow much the deforestation and we're likely to raze everything before we start building those type of factory but I won't mind if we start sooner.

Comment Re:Just use whatever the Germans do (Score 1) 315

If you wanted to bring example of great France war story to counter-attack about prank about the white flag, why did you skip Napoleon?

An absolutely annihilated 6 of the 7 coalition again France. That's similar, but not comparable to, six WWII won in a span of 20 years. It is no small feat. And, toward the end of the Napoleonic Wars, there was an order in the coalition to not engage and retreat if they meet an army that Napoleon lead.

Most history enthusiast today only remember his major flaw in the invasion of Russia, but putting that aside, he could be considered the greatest military mind of history.

Comment Re:Go back to the Moon why? (Score 1) 51

So much fails in this one single post.

To me space will become nothing more then a expensive tourist trap. The one percent will have another reason to spend their money.

So you prefer that they kept their money in bank? I tough that one of the problem with 1%er is that they doesn't spend enough money.

I have yet to read a practical use for these private space ventures except for supplying the Space station which SpaceX has obtained that contract.

Here's one reason. But I could name you a dozen over the top of my head (Tourism, mining, electricity production, telecom, science etc.) that could become feasible if SpaceX achieve to offer commercial space flight for a fraction of the actual price.

Otherwise none of these space ventures seem important in space exploration.

Yeah, money is clearly not a factor for space exploration.

They are just rich guys with a fantasy for space. Giving wealthy people a thrill ride is not space exploration.

Really? Rich guy are the only one interested in SpaceX news because of space tourism?

Comment Why does a nuclear facility need to be connected? (Score 4, Insightful) 85

Just a little thought, why does the network that control of a nuclear facility need to be connected to the internet? I'm not saying it should be unplugged, but why they couldn't simply make two separate network? One for computer, the other to control the facility.

Comment Re:We can only detect planets they pass their star (Score 1) 90

Am I missing something?

So, 9 women can produce 1 baby in 1 month?

There is a reason for the quote: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Wrong, Brooks' law doesn't apply here and you're completely missing the point.

Brooks' law is about work parallelization. It mean that if it take 100 hours for a worker to do a project, 2 workers won't necessarily make it in 50 hours and that 100 worker will certainly not make it in 1 hour.

Here's a good example on how statistic work in this case :

You have a test that got 1% chance to detect a disease and you want to test how many people have it. You make the test on a million person and you got 10 positive result. The conclusion is that, statically, 10 000 got the disease out of the million, not 10.

Your statement is true only if you are 100% confident that you'll detect 100% of the planet by scanning a star for X time. Which isn't the case here.

Comment Re:We can only detect planets they pass their star (Score 1) 90

I hope so.

If you simplified to a 2d world then we should be able to see every single planet.

As I said, I've made my example 2D so simplify my explanation but 3D isn't much harder (see below)

So if you scan 72000 stars and found 4 planets, you can make the assumption that there are 4 planets out of 72000 stars.

Wrong, plain wrong.

You have a test that got 1% chance to detect a disease and you want to test how many people have it. You make the test on a million person and you got 10 positive result. The conclusion is that, statically, 10 000 got the disease out of the million, not 10.

Your statement is true only if you are 100% confident that you'll detect 100% of the planet by scanning a star for X time. Which isn't the case here.

Not only is the sample size ridiculously low to make such conclusions, but in a 2d universe given the longest orbital period's worth of observation you should be able to see every planet pass a star at some point.

I assume you're basing your figures on a single instant of observation rather than the longest concievably defined galactic year. Realistically we would have to compromise somewhere in between.

The make a precise statistical deduction of Jupiter-class planet, all you need is the odd of you detecting the planet when it pass by it's star and the odd that the planet pass by it's star during the X time you're looking at it.

The first depend on many factor out of my knowledge like distortion between us and the star that will either erase the signal or add false positive.

The second is mostly 3D space calculation where you need the distance between you and the star, the size of the star, the odd that the orbit if it's planet pass between us so you could get what are the % of time that the planet is visible during it's orbit. For instance, for 360 degree orbit, you can only see the planet for 0.01 degree. In this case, the orbital period (be either 12 years or a few month) is irrelevant but could affect the first factor.

But neither one of us has the slightest clue what they're talking about, I assure you that.

Er... no you cannot.

Comment Re:We can only detect planets they pass their star (Score 3, Informative) 90

It's rather premature to declare all those systems devoid of planets when our primary means for detecting possible planets is when they pass between our planet and their star at the same time we observe them. Jupiter takes 12 years to make an orbit. As a simple logic problem, that means that we have to one opportunity to observe Jupiter passing between Sol and some sort of earth-analog in another system.... and that makes the HUGE assumption that that earth-analog is aligned with the solar system's orbital plane. If the earth analog happens to be staring down north-south on Sol, it isn't going to detect any planets.

There are a few other ways to detect planets, but those are special cases, again, very rare, and detecting very unique planets.

Detecting Sol-like systems is still extremely difficult.

Well unless the scientist working on this are total moron, you can quite easily do some statistic analysis to guess the number of Jupiter-like planet in other planetary system even with those complication . Here's a quick example. Let's suppose the world is in 2D and make every orbit are perfectly round to simplify things. A planet have a 360 orbit and let's say we can only see the planet for 0.01 (so 1/36000) of their orbit with 100% accuracy. So if you scan 72000 star and find 4 planets, you can then make the assumption that there's 2 gas planet per planetary system on average.

Am I missing something?

Slashdot Top Deals

"It takes all sorts of in & out-door schooling to get adapted to my kind of fooling" - R. Frost

Working...