Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Ideas (Score 4, Interesting) 148

Transparent : tall invisible bars are aesthetically acceptable.

Fragile : make it seem easy and simple but fragile in a way that once broken it becomes hard to climb. If you break something and hurt yourself few people will blame the inanimate object.

Sticky: as soon as you touch it, it secretes superglue. The guards come with an innocuous solvent.

Hidden : fill the moat with a "non-Newtonian" dirt colored fluid. Doesn't look like a moat, but people do fall inside and it's hard to move fast through it.

Comment: Re:So? (Score 1) 134

by Thanshin (#49369119) Attached to: Europol Chief Warns About Computer Encryption

The cat is out of the bag. Crypto and its application is an academic subject now, with plenty of companies and open-source projects using the fruit of the work. That is to say, for another ten-fifteen years or so. Then, quantum will start taking it all apart. The amateurs will not have the resources to follow there.

So, basically, the cat is either out of the bag, or dead, and we won't know for another ten-fifteen years, time at which the cat wave collapses.

Comment: Re:How many people called it here? (Score 2) 134

by Thanshin (#49368635) Attached to: Europol Chief Warns About Computer Encryption

Snooping agencies will fight tooth and nail to keep their snooping powers

The problem with fighting tooth and nail is that it's strategically stupid to fight directly against a larger and stronger army.

The privacy arms race benefits the people, only a false feeling of safety and anonymity stops the people from making it practically impossible (or impossibly impractical) to spy on the general population.

A front attack, however strong it may be, will fail.

Some of us are accusing the agencies of being intrusive, but this is a different problem. This is about having been intrusive in a strategically unintelligent way.

Comment: How many people called it here? (Score 5, Insightful) 134

by Thanshin (#49368521) Attached to: Europol Chief Warns About Computer Encryption

Someone should make a query that extracts the Slashdot commentaries that have predicted this exact situation for a decade.

The prediction goes like this : "If you keep doing stupid shit like that, people will start encrypting their computers and communications to protect themselves from your unimportant shit and this will help the very few people who encrypt their computers and communications to hide serious crimes."

The more you turn everyone into a criminal, the harder it will be to find the actual criminals.

It's time to decriminalize the population, so people become once again able to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent.

Comment: Re:Boo, you fad killer! (Score 1) 110

by Thanshin (#49342873) Attached to: The One Thousand Genes You Could Live Without

Humans can do it better. It's a fact proven by a few thousand years of doing it better and so much faster.

I've lost too much faith in average intelligence to spend time in trying futilely to further explain to you why you're an imbecile.

Ok, that's enough slashdot for today. I'm tired of this shit.

Comment: Re:How do we know the Higgs was really discovered (Score 2) 57

by Thanshin (#49334185) Attached to: Short Circuit In LHC Could Delay Restart By Weeks

I don't think works as you think it does.

If you point your goggles to a spot and see a lion eating a gazelle, finding afterwards that your goggles had a dent won't make you doubt of the existence of that lion.

Or, in other words, short circuits don't conjure results that coincide with decades of theory.

Comment: Re:Eat less than you burn (Score 1) 493

by Thanshin (#49328013) Attached to: Hacking Weight Loss: What I Learned Losing 30 Pounds

In case you are interested, I'll summarize for you.

A - Calculate daily kcal expenditure [via a formula, for example].
B - Count how much you must eat :
  B1 - ~1.5g proteins/day * 4kcal per gram of protein.
  B2 - ~1g of fat/day * 9kcal per gram of fat
C - Decide how much to eat. e.g. : daily expenditure - 500 to lose weight at 500g/week speed.
D - Calculate carbs by dividing remaining daily kcals/4
E - Eat those grams of protein, fat and carbs every day.

Everything else is either details for pro athletes or voodoo shenanigans.

Comment: Re:Eat less than you burn (Score 1) 493

by Thanshin (#49327867) Attached to: Hacking Weight Loss: What I Learned Losing 30 Pounds

Like I stated above, having an office job and not exercising, one would only need ~1300 calories for equilibrium.

Let's see:
1300 = 370 + (21.6 x LBM) Where LBM = [total weight (kg) x (100 - bodyfat %)]/100

With an average BF% of about 25%, this gets us :
(1300 -370) / 21.6 = total weight (kg) x 0.75

So, you're talking about the "average" 57kg American?

And, even if that was true, a person that small would need 57~85g of protein and ~57g fat per day, which is 741 kcal per day to which that person could perfectly well add 300 kcal of carbs, some vitamins and minerals.

Comment: Re:Eat less than you burn (Score 0, Troll) 493

by Thanshin (#49327633) Attached to: Hacking Weight Loss: What I Learned Losing 30 Pounds

"How fricking complicated is it to eat less than you burn?"

Followed by a huge, complicated, wall of text.

I suppose it's THAT complicated!

You do know this is Slashdot, right?

If ten minutes of reading, or simple formula, scare you, ... Well, I guess, yeah, eliminate all sugar and eat salt as you crave it. Good luck.

To downgrade the human mind is bad theology. - C. K. Chesterton