Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 2) 137

Interpolation is WORSE than nothing. you're discarding signal then adding noise in the hopes that it matches up with what should've been there kinda okay.

1, 2, 3, X, 5, 6. Guess the value of X... Congratulations, you just interpolated the right answer.

In the case of what the GP described, though, it works out even better than that, because the panel actually "knows" the right answer, so it hasn't "thrown away" information; it just lacks the luminance resolution to display it. It can, however, interpolate in the temporal domain way, way faster than the human eye can tell, to create a color we perceive as the correct value.

/ Go ahead, twitch gamers, tell us all about your ability to resolve sub-millisecond 1.5% color changes. XD

Comment Re: double blind testing (Score 1) 376

Could it be perhaps because nobody is subjected to double blind testing in order to determine whether or not they are disabled?

With most legitimate disabilities, a state licensed doctor can typically evaluate whether or not someone meets the criteria for a particular disability. How many legs does the patient have? Less than two? Okay, disabled.

And for the somewhat harder to prove disabilities like chronic pain, at least in the US the burden of proof rests on the individual to make their case, not the government to disprove it - Real sufferers wish they had a way to objectively prove their pain by something like a double-blind test.

RF sensitivity, amusingly enough, falls into a nice neat bin halfway between those two extremes. It has no externally measurable pathology, like chronic pain; but we do have a nice straightforward test to objectively disprove it as a legit disability - Even the worst "sufferers" of it can't successfully detect the presence of the very thing that supposedly leaves them in agony.

"No really, I swear, a shark bit my leg off! You just can't see it because [insert technobabble here]."

Comment Re:Not this shit again... (Score 2) 376

But given that where I feel this "whine" is my ear I don't think it is a stretch that it could be causing dizziness and nausea in others in fact is seems likely.

Do you feel confident that you could detect this whine under controlled experimental conditions, without any external information about when they turned the power on or off? And if not, what would that say about your actual ability to perceive that whine vs your beliefs about that whine?

That said, I don't disbelieve you about the whine. We can all hear it, because AC transformers and high voltage lines actually do make noise at the frequency of the AC - In the US, typically a 60Hz hum, but your choice of the word "whine" makes me think you most likely mean the 15kHz used in a cheap flyback transformer like you would find in an old TV.

it most definitely is not conclusive or concrete data.

If you claim $CAUSE gives you crippling pain, but can't tell whether or not $CAUSE exists without external confirmation, yes, that counts as both conclusive and concrete.

Try replacing $CAUSE with "a shark chewing on your leg". That "conclusive" enough for ya? :)

Comment Re:What's the real problem? (Score 1) 189

But spending any of his time or yours solving proprietary software licensing issues instead of making your own products work is a gigantic waste.

Great advice if you work in a pure-dev shop and the entire corporate food chain knows and likes Linux.

Career-ending advice, however, if you work in the other 99% of the IT industry and the CIO just wants the COTS ERP system to do its damned job.

I myself like and use Linux (at home), make no mistake. But suggesting someone "rewrite" the next version of their most-likely-3rd-party software to run on an open source platform just doesn't count as a practical, or often even possible, suggestion.

Comment Not really (Score 5, Insightful) 123

The article says they're not aiming at Apple. Instead they're actually jumping, feet first, into the commodity smartphone market. Which might seen suicidal, but, again as the article points out, that's where Scully actually excels (and probably why he didn't get as far with Apple, which was never commodity based, when he was at the helm.)

Essentially he's going to be selling nice, but not spectacular, Android phones, and using branding to differentiate the phones in the market. And he'll probably make a success of it because instead of having the overhead of a giant electronics company to contend with, unlike say Samsung, he's just having a third party put together a design, then outsourcing the manufacture of the thing, concentrating largely on quality (which affects brand) rather than features (which doesn't.)

It's not actually that exciting to nerds. The news is probably orgasm-worthy though if you work in marketing.

Comment Re:In other words. (Score 3, Interesting) 269

Is that actually the case? I thought a big purpose was to avoid voter intimidation by non-governmental vigilantes who oppose a particular candidate.

Absolutely! Your reason also holds true, but it comes in a distant second.

We tend to minimize the "Uncle Sam knows who you voted for" angle precisely because we don't live in a country where we routinely round up people who voted for the "wrong" candidate to torture or execute or "reeducate" them.

By contrast, consider (whatever your stance on the post-9/11 Iraq war) that Saddam Hussein routinely won reelection by an almost unanimous vote for precisely that reason.

Comment Re:Worst. Summary. Ever. And a lie to boot. (Score 1) 1027

It's not a lie in the slightest. The clique dominating the Hugos refused to allow any awards to be given to anyone tainted by crimethink.

That is a lie. There is no "clique dominating the Hugos". There's no such thing as "tainted by crimethink", and if your inanely ridiculous wording were to be interpreted as meaning "Tainted by being nominated by the Puppy slates", at least one Hugo winner was, actually, on the Puppy slates.

You forgot "reactionary", "MRA", and "antifeminist" with your partisan straw man.

No, if I felt those were appropriate, I would have said them - though that said "reactionary" does seem fair, but it's implied by what was said anyway. What I said was 100% accurate, not a strawman.

Perhaps the problem here is that you have no idea what's going on, have decided you have a bad case of identity politics, and have decided to buy a particularly weirdly spun version of what actually happened because you identify with those spinning it that way? Because there's no obvious other reason why you'd resort both to pretending I'm implying the various Hugo groups were generic enemies of so-called "SJWs" ("MRAs", "Feminists", etc), using ridiculous jargon like "crimethink", and generally pretending that something other than what happened happened.=

It's not bizarre at all. The entire point was whether the toxic clique rigging the Hugos would award nominees from outside their clique or if they would take the unprecedented step of handing out more No Awards in a single event than in almost the history of the award.

THERE. IS. NO. CLIQUE. The fans, not some small, closed, secretive group (which is what a clique is) voted against it. Some 6,000 paid up fans voted in this contest. When they voted No Award, which they only did in a handful of categories, No Award was the first choice of the majority.

There is simply no way to reconcile that with the notion some "clique" overrode fans' wishes. No way at all. It's mathematically impossible. Indeed, if you were to somehow mind read the fans, and murder any fan who'd vote against any work because they dislike that work's political views, you'd still have ended up with a huge plurality in favor of "No award" in those categories.

Again, I refer you to the headline. "Hugos Refuse To Award Anyone Rather Than Submit To Fans' Votes". I said this is a lie, because it is one. The fans, not the "Hugos", voted, and the "Hugos", that is, the administrators of the Hugos, accepted that vote. The only people who are refusing to accept that vote, who are refusing to submit to the fan's votes, are you and the puppies.

The blatant rigging was from the people who've been pushing ideology to the point they'll No Award a female author just because people they dislike happened to like her.

This actually proves the opposite of what you're saying. You're claiming identity politics, yet you're giving an example of where identity politics is being explicitly rejected.

You must not browse slashdot very much then because the editors have made a habit of doing that every week. We call it "feminist friday".

That's... fascinating. I obviously haven't, because, no, I have never seen Slashdot's editors try to rig the Hugos by pushing a slate of works deemed inoffensive to liberals. Never. Perhaps you can link to one such story. What works did they recommend, out of interest?

The puppies didn't rig anything, they proved that the hugos WERE rigged in the first place.

They proved they were rigged by... being the ones that rigged them. That's it.

All they actually prove is that while it's possible to game the Hugos and rig the nomination list, it's not possible to win. It's only possible to win a Hugo if your work is good. Game the nominations as much as you like, you'll never win if your work isn't Hugo-worthy.

Which, incidentally, also proves that it's unlikely the Hugos have been rigged for decades, because pretty much every category has had a winner for decades.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the Puppies lost. And they hurt everyone. And no amount of living in some fantasyland where giant SJWs roam the land, somehow mind controlling fandom into voting for stories about lesbian seagulls, will ever help you understand that.

Comment Re:"Online" classes (Score 1) 95

None of the above really matter as long as any of them include the idea of "learning from your peers". If I pay a university to teach me something, they'd damned well better stick a relative expert on the subject matter in front of me for 40 hours over the next three months, whether in person, in realtime, or just "on demand".

Far, far too many online courses have roughly the same format as a Slashdot FP - Post the day's reading material, then require students to "discuss" it. Except, just like with Slashdot (browsing at 2+), the first few comments (almost always by the same few people) pretty much say it all, and everyone else tags along with "me too" - Albeit phrased much more verbosely to get credit for "participating".

Sorry, but I didn't pay to chat with people who know as little, or less, about the subject than I do. I don't have any interest in "learning" by helping my classmates catch up. I honestly do not give the least fuck about my "peers", and if I could afford to, I would have much preferred to only take classes with one-on-one instruction from a subject matter expert.

Comment Re:Blame the trolls and other idiots (Score 1) 226

Don't worry, most people do know what you mean, but unfortunately there's a contingent out there that equates criticizing trolls with censorship, or reads into any criticism of trolls, or proposals to discourage them (which you didn't do) with censorship.

That's Slashdot at the moment. It's a shame, but that's how far things have gone downhill. I almost miss the days when you could post something mildly critical of infringing copyrights and get flamed, but criticizing trolling, doxxing, and other Internet assholery didn't result in +5 Insightful being given to every post that calls you a Nazi.

Comment Re:Yes, comments are too hard to police. (Score 1) 226

there's no way for their readers to see that the content is wrong.

Apparently there is...

(And, to be honest, putting a debunking in a comment rather than posting a well written debunking on an independent site is probably likely to result in that debunking being taken less seriously than the latter. Comments sections were tolerated for the precisely the reason they're now being shut down - rather than havens for fact finding and discussion, they were mostly populated by trolls and Very Angry People With No Hold On Reality, which means nobody took the content seriously.)

Of course you can't flap your arms and fly to the moon. After a while you'd run out of air to push against.