Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Yesteryears Algorithms (Score 1) 36

Damn, what a sad attitude to see.

Say there's some 11 year old newbie programmer. She hasn't done any of this yet, and hears, "a lot of people who are into the stuff you're into, are on a place called Slashdot." Yeah, let's agree that our position is: fuck off, newbie, go get your learning and inspiration somewhere else.

I remember reading articles kind of like this, a few decades ago in "COMPUTE!" magazine and similar things. The topics were even old then, and some graybeard from the 1960s might have scoffed with "oh, I was doing that 10-20 years ago." Well, guess what, 1960s graybeard: maybe you didn't leave enough accessible notes, much less, code. And yes, someone can look at (or imagine) results, and make up how they'll do it, without needing to know how you did it. But maybe some kid wants to learn from your mistakes and successes.

Anybody who writes up decent problems and solutions is welcome, IMHO. I don't give a fuck if it's stuff we were doing decades ago. And honestly, most of that source code isn't around anyway. And when I think of my 1980s code, even if I had my old source, you sure-as-fuck wouldn't want to try to read it.

Comment Re:Because humans are the solution to ... (Score 1) 62

They weren't anywhere near the reef until humans spread them there in bilge water. So but for us the reef wouldn't be threatened at all. In that sense, any population above zero is unnatural. The booms are caused by agricultural runoff.

At this point, the closest we can get to non-intervention will be to remove every last one of them from the reef.

Comment Two thoughts on this. (Score 2) 162

First, they could always use blipverts.

Second, 400+ new shows is somewhere between half to a third of a new show per channel per season, on average. That suggests that if there's too much new material, there are far, far too many channels. In fact, that might be the best solution. Shut down nine in every ten channels. Then you can have exactly the same amount of new material with less channel surfing. People will stay on channel because they'll like the next program as well.

The British did perfectly well on four channels. In fact, they mostly did perfectly well on three channels. America is, of course, bigger. They might need fifteen to cater to all the various needs. You don't need several thousand (including local). All it does is dilute the good stuff with a lot of crap.

Submission + - Poison-Injecting Robot Submarine Assassinates Sea Stars to Save Coral Reefs->

schwit1 writes: Population explosions of sea stars can devastate entire reefs, and it's not unheard of to see 100,000 crown-of-thorns sea stars per square kilometer. There isn't a lot that we can do to combat these infestations, because the sea stars can regenerate from absurd amounts of physical damage (they have to be almost entirely dismembered or completely buried under rocks), so humans have to go up to each and every sea star and inject them with poison 10 times over (!) because once isn't enough.

When these outbreaks happen, swift and comprehensive eradication becomes a priority to keep reefs intact, but human divers can only manage to kill about 120 sea stars per hour with poison. Last year, a much more effective poison was developed that can kill a sea star in 24 hours, after a single injection.

This one-shot poison (which is harmless to everything else on the reef) is what makes autonomous robotic sea star control possible. At Queensland University of Technology in Australia, a group of researchers spent the last decade working on COTSBot, which has been specifically designed to seek out and murder crown-of-thorns sea stars as mercilessly and efficiently as possible.

COTSBot is a 30-kilogram yellow torpedo with a maximum speed of over 2 meters per second and an endurance of over 6 hours. Five thrusters give it the capability of briefly hovering in the water column, giving it time to attack crown of thorns sea stars with an integrated poison injection system. It's completely autonomous, down to the identification and targeting of COTSS lurking among coral.

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Why not stop making new shows (Score 1) 162

Keeping existing shows running means they run out of plots and ideas, and keep jumping sharks as to try to prevent repeating the same plot over and over.
Also there is the creative aspect towards making a new show. Why do we make new software vs. just maintaining the existing branch, there is argument about architecture and other stuff. But it really comes down to the fact that we as humans like to create Just keeping a show running gets dull, starting a new show is much more interesting.
Also it comes down to money. You start a new show, you hire some actors many of them starting out. The show is a hit, so the actor gets more famous and asks for more money, as their time is being spend towards other project, which pay more. So the show will either have to pay the actor more money, find a way to write him out of the script, or just stop the show. And make a new show with different actors.

I think right now the influx of news shows comes down to cheaper production costs. Traditionally with had new shows from the big 3 NBC, ABC, and CBS. FOX then got big enough to product its own shows. But still most of the cable stations just showed repeats or low quality productions. But the cost is getting to a point where we are getting a lot of companies can afford to come up with original content. So there is a big influx of content.

Comment Re:So glad I don't watch TV (Score 5, Insightful) 162

No, you are not alone, there are plenty of people like you, constantly mentioning to others that you don't watch TV. It is especially evident when the topic is watching TV, you'd think this is the one time when you'd decline to comment as you have no idea what's been going on, but no there are already several comments just like yours, already moderated up to +5 Insightful.

Comment Too many of them aren't worth following (Score 4, Insightful) 162

Remember Lost? The show where they would start with some interesting subplot, only to never revisit it in subsequent episodes? They just went on to some newer subplot.

That's what I feel about new TV shows. If I give in to the show and start watching regularly, I must know that they're going to treat me well. But doing that kind of crap is boring as fuck for writers (evidently) because they hate it and only want to start with a blank slate every episode. I've been burned too many times. Now, they have THE NERVE to complain that viewers won't engage? God damn, it's your own fucking fault, people.

Comment Re:Interesting Data Point (Score 2) 82

Oh, come on, that's bullshit, Mozilla hates fixing bugs and would much rather work on adding new features. Anytime someone tries to pull that "we are working on more important bugs" baloney, it means they're not working on anything. Those bugs will sit there unfixed for years, if they were actually prioritizing bugs they'd get fixed eventually. But, no. It's just a phrase they use to brush off criticism.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 83

Explain the cowpox/smallpox thing. Is there actually a correlation there or did you just pull some scienceism out of thin air? Seriously, WTF? Dirty farm air and the development of vaccination have nothing to do with each other unless you want to really reach. I suppose cowpox was contracted by farm workers so there's your brain's connection.

Comment Re: Alert! (Score 1) 330

No, you're moronic.

The whole point of science in the first place is that I don't need to trust anyone, I can personally confirm things for myself.

That's the whole point of the scientific method.

An assertion that isn't accompanied with a set of steps that I can use to confirm it for myself it just another myth.

Science is what allows one man alone to present an assertion that a rational actor could embrace even though there is a consensus that he is wrong.

Science is what allows one man alone to assert that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, and have people embrace this assertion and make choices that improve their chance to survive and thrive, despite there being consensus that he is wrong.

Anyone who thinks "scientific consensus" means anything is a grade a moron.

Comment Re:Where's my money? (Score 1) 104

Look up the case and see if you are a member of the Class. Actually, you will probably be contacted if you are a member of the Class and given the option to accept the settlement and extinguish your right to sue yourself, or you can refuse the settlement and keep your right to sue independently. So make sure Intel knows where to find you.

If it is as much as $6k, I'd join the class unless you have the savings to hire a high powered legal team. The Intel corporate lawyers will own you otherwise.

"Gort, klaatu nikto barada." -- The Day the Earth Stood Still

Working...