Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Finally a replacement (Score 1) 54

by hairyfeet (#49633997) Attached to: AMD Outlines Plans For Zen-Based Processors, First Due In 2016

Same here only the 1035T and with the 3.2GHz Turbocore this baby has NO problem playing the latest games and on medium settings Handbrake hits over 160fps.

So while I might look into one of these if they hit 12 cores or better right now I'd say grab one of the AMD hexacore or Octocores if you haven't, because once you remove the benchmarks Intel admits they rigged you'll find the FX8s trade blows with chips costing more than double the price, numbers which the GCC compiled Linux becnhmarks attest to.

Comment: Linux Was The Most Approachable (Score 1) 225

by Greyfox (#49632861) Attached to: Why Was Linux the Kernel That Succeeded?
My first job was with a small company in 1989. They'd gone with SCO Xenix on a 286 machine (IIRC the 386 was still on the horizon at that point.) I looked briefly at BSD as a potentially less expensive and more feature rich alternative to that, but at the time the only options was to order tapes of the distribution and I didn't even know if it would work on our hardware. Even if that'd have been guaranteed, I'd still have to convince the boss to buy a tape drive to try it out. Given the fact that our immediate solution wasn't broke (even if it had cost $1200 for the base OS,) that would have been a tough sell.

Over the next couple years I worked there we looked onto potentially OS/2 and... I want to say DRM DOS? as a potentially cheaper multitasking alternative to Xenix on our systems. Even though I was nominally aware of BSD, the amount of tinkering to even try to get it working was intimidating, and we didn't have the immediate need for it.

By the mid 90's people were really starting to talk about Linux in exactly the sort of way they were NOT talking about BSD. I looked at the procedure to install it -- download a bunch of slakware install floppies off the newfangled internets (24 install floppies as I recall, which took for-fucking-ever! And I accidentally FTPed the first two in text mode. Shit!) and boot that shit up. I specifically remember finding the installer to be far less sucktastic than either the OS/2 installer or the Windows 3.1 installer that you ran shortly after pirating MS DOS (Which you typically would do even if you had a legitimate MS DOS install on your system.)

In short order, I had a working Linux system with a working C compiler, no fuss, no muss. Well some fuss -- couldn't run X11 very well on the VGA controller I had, but I was fine with a text console until I bought a computer that wasn't made out of duct tape and baling wire, that being the custom of the time. I almost immediately set up a TCP/IP network between the real computer and the baling wire computer, too, experimented with NFS, all that fun stuff. Got my system pwned several times, you know, all the usual stuff you go through to learn how to become a halfway decent Linux admin.

So yeah, for me at least it was all about accessibility. Minix was just a toy and BSD required a wizard hat and robe.

Comment: Virtual Quantum Burrito (Score 1) 156

by Greyfox (#49632695) Attached to: 17-Year-Old Radio Astronomy Mystery Traced Back To Kitchen Microwave
Much like the NASA EM drive, this happens when a virtual quantum burrito is created in the microwave chamber. Not only is thrust always guaranteed in the event that a burrito is in the microwave chamber, but virtual quantum burritos tend to be very loud in the EM spectrum due to quantum entanglement of the burrito particles.

Mmmm... burrito...

Comment: Re:One Criterion Missing (Score 1) 403

by Roger W Moore (#49632115) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

New science is not always required if something odd is noticed.

True but this is a little different from your example. There is no fundamental law of physics saying that you cannot build an instrument large enough to observe distant planets. In the absence of such a restriction building that instrument is down to human ingenuity. However there is a fundamental law of physics which says that momentum is conserved.

As a result this force is either due to some interaction with the surroundings that the experiment has forgotten to account for or is due to new physics in the form of new particles/interactions or violation of conservation of momentum - which is an extremely fundamental law of physics. There really are no "loopholes" to squeeze through.

My personal feeling is that it will turn out to be some effect which they forgot to account for although I cannot help but hope that it turns out to be something far more interesting...which is why it is so easy to fool ourselves when doing experiments.

Comment: A lot more than one (Score 1) 439

by Roger W Moore (#49631725) Attached to: The Medical Bill Mystery

Yet I bet nearly every one of us has dealt with at least one error or oversight that benefits the company

I lived for several years in the US just over a decade ago when MCI was a long distance phone company. They made so many mistakes that it became a joke: there was at least one error every 3 months and it was always in their favour. Even the one time they accidentally credited my bill with someone else's far larger payment they tried to charge me a late payment fee when they corrected it several months later despite acknowledging that I had informed them of the mistake at the time it occurred!

If you contrast this with Canada I don't think I have ever had an error on a bill since I moved here 12 years ago. Even in the UK, where I was moving around more frequently, the only time I had trouble was with either the setup or termination of services which was more understandable. As a result it is hard to believe that the massive rate of mistakes I observed in the US (and not just MCI, although they were by far the worst) is entirely due to incompetence and it seems far, far more likely that it is a deliberate policy of some companies to overcharge and then hope that you cannot be bothered to complain.

Comment: Need more data (Score 5, Insightful) 219

The only evidence uncovered is that the PD has a robust system for reporting and investigating claims.

That's not quite true - the evidence suggests only that they have a robust system for reporting and recording claims. I've not seen any evidence to suggest that they robustly investigate them and the OP claims that there is evidence of them using unnecessary force and racist language without repercussion which, if substantiated, would be clear evidence of very poor investigation.

I completely agree that having a large fraction of claims refused is not evidence that the system is not working. It does suggest that the system should be investigated to understand why there are such a lot of dismissed complaints because either cops are having to endure a lot of frivolous discipline cases or they are getting away with serious misconduct. Either possibility is bad but the statistics provided do not distinguish between the two cases.

Comment: Re:Laws that need to be made in secret (Score 1) 157

by gstoddart (#49631355) Attached to: Extreme Secrecy Eroding Support For Trans-Pacific Partnership

Because, in all honesty, you can probably assume that the "trade deal" is heavily skewed to protect corporate interests, and will not benefit anybody else.

Essentially these treaties are heavily influenced (if not actually written) by corporate demands.

It's secret because if people knew the government was essentially acting as lackeys for the copyright cartels and the like, people might disagree with it.

It really can't be a good "treaty" if you have secret terms with each of the countries you're trying to get do sign on.

They just don't want their peers to know how much they're getting screwed by globalization.

Mark my words, the only ones who will benefit from this will be multinational corporations. And it will probably extend copyright in a few more countries.

Comment: Re:I'm sure no one will misconstrue this at all... (Score 5, Insightful) 87

by gstoddart (#49631065) Attached to: Apple's Plans For Your DNA

Sure, until insurance companies and governments start demanding access to it.

You don't need to be much of a conspiracy nut to realize the potential for privacy invasion and abuse of this data is absolutely staggering.

There simply are way too few legal controls on how this stuff is used to safely make it as commonplace as that.

Essentially, corporations and the government will have massive databases of the DNA of pretty much everybody ... and it will be used to deny you service, in criminal proceedings because they can demand it, and who knows what else.

DNA samples on an iPhone is a hell of a way to get the fully distopian future and Big Brother .. because you can bet your ass that secret warrants will be used to force companies to hand this stuff over and then have it collated into one big giant database.

I don't care if it's Apple, Microsoft, Google, or anybody else ... this is a creepy idea which will have enormous implications to society.

Biotech

Apple's Plans For Your DNA 87

Posted by Soulskill
from the download-a-parkinson's-cure-from-itunes dept.
An anonymous reader writes: MIT's Technology Review breaks news that Apple is working with scientists to create apps that collect and evaluate users' DNA. "The apps are based on ResearchKit, a software platform Apple introduced in March that helps hospitals or scientists run medical studies on iPhones by collecting data from the devices' sensors or through surveys." A source says Apple's plan is to enable users to easily share their DNA information with medical workers and researchers performing studies. "To join one of the studies, a person would agree to have a gene test carried out—for instance, by returning a "spit kit" to a laboratory approved by Apple. The first such labs are said to be the advanced gene-sequencing centers operated by UCSF and Mount Sinai."

Comment: Re:I'm shocked ... (Score 5, Insightful) 219

That is, until the video surfaces.

There have been enough high profile instances of police officers outright lying about what happened that I simply am not willing to assume they're telling the truth. Because often when a video shows up the police are proven to be lying.

If the good cops can't weed out the bad ones, then it's time to treat them all like children who can't be trusted.

In the fall of 2012, Ben Livingston (a past Stranger contributor) was the subject of a Washington State Patrol traffic stop. Livingston requested dash-cam video of the traffic stop, but the Washington State Patrol denied possessing such footage. The following year, Livingston, Rachner, Mocek, and Seattle civil rights attorney Cleveland Stockmeyer created a nonprofit called the Center for Open Policing (COP). Their first effort was to sue.

They won, and the state patrol settled to the tune of about $23,000. "I particularly enjoyed that case," said Mocek.

If you or I did that, it would be perjury and obstruction of justice.

This is a police force which was already under a federal consent decree ... which means they've been acting like this for a long time.

Boo hoo ... the poor police feel all ganged up on because they can't break the law and get away with it.

If God had a beard, he'd be a UNIX programmer.

Working...