Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:No compelling evidence? (Score 1) 663

Technically correct. And for spherical humans in a vacuum, completely correct.


  - There are multiple factors which influence how much is burned. Food has an influence on energy levels and brain chemistry beyond "how many calories were in the food", for example.

  - "Consuming food" is a fuzzy definition. "food entering your mouth" is not the same as "food which will be converted into energy for your body". In the U.S. at least (I don't know about elsewhere) the label of "calories" on a box of food, for example, is meant to compensate for this, giving an average based on a typical person eating a standard amount.

Notice that neither of these point attempt to refute the claim that a poor diet makes you fat. What I am refuting is that the concept of "poor diet makes you fat" can be usefully mapped to thermodynamics.

Comment Biometrics (Score 1) 66

Biometric data is *NOT SECRET* and never has been. The idea isn't "nobody has access to your fingerprints", it's "if you control the device, and can monitor the person attempting to access the device, you can easily detect attempts to use someone else's data"

eg: Yes, your fingerprint reader can be defeated by the person holding a photocopy of someone else's hand. If you leave them alone with the device, they can also defeat it by pulling the back cover off, so that's not particularly an issue.

Comment It makes perfect sense (Score 1) 112

Almost all popular social media these days label a button which has the effect of "I think more people should see this" as "I like / approve of this"

So of course it makes sense that people would start treating "I think more people should see this" as a synonym for general endorsement.

On the other hand, there's that word "material", and speech is never material. That's the *ONLY* fucking point.

Comment Re:Computing bottlenecks (Score 0) 109

Once you have a unified address space, you'll pretty quickly realise that: 1) the definition of "unified address space" has moved on enough that you still don't have one, and 2) you still want to segment those address spaces for reasons other than performance and the physical limitations of volitility

Comment Re:American Cities (Score 4, Insightful) 142

The robot will *always* have been vandalised. That is the only end condition. It is a social experiment, to see if the robot gets vandalised, which runs until it happens. The experiment can be viewed as:

while !robot.IsVandalised() {
  if robot.NeedsRepair() {
  } // do nothing

This only proves "at least one person will vandalise a (reports indicate already-broken) robot". We already knew that.

Comment Re:Am I the only guy here that likes G+? (Score 2) 153

The real problem wasn't "tying Google+ to everything"

The real problem was "tying the *name* Google+ to everything"

like they somehow thought that if they called 20 unrelated (and individually great) services "Google+", people would be tricked into they should use Service X just because they use Service Y.

Identity management for all google services? It would be insane not to have that. We'll call it "Google+"

A messaging platform for talking to friends and professionals alike? We'll call it "Google+"

A video conferencing app? Well, that's arguably part of messaging, which we're calling Google+, so it's also called Google+.

Want to share a photo? Me too. Google+ is great for that. No, no, not *that* Google+, the other Google+

Over time, each of these services have gotten their own name and branding and app and experience. But everyone still thinks "I hate Google+! It keeps asking me to join it every time I want to share a photo! I am not interested in a new Social Network!" .. when really these tools have *always* been unrelated, but sharing a common name (though they probably all used the unified Google Login, which is called Google+, but you'd have to be a special kind of idiot to not want that)

Just because he's dead is no reason to lay off work.