Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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: Re:Sweet F A (Score 2) 576

Your monkeys are deficient in randomness.

Of course truly random monkeys would contain many random mutations many of which are not going to be viable, which means that room no matter that it is infinitely big, is going to be full of the stench of dead, decaying monkey flesh. The whole damn metaphor stinks.

Comment: Re:Sweet F A (Score 2) 576

Parent post presents a reasonable argument. But the argument depends on an unstated assumption that cannot be verified and is most likely not true. The assumption being that our observational skills are so highly developed that we would recognize a break in causality if we saw it.

On every scale from the dark matter/energy that makes galaxies the way they are to the mysteries of quantum foam, there are a multitude of indications that we really are not very good observers. For if we were, there would be a lot fewer oddities that the science teachers kick into the corner and tell the students to ignore them.

Comment: Re:Sweet F A (Score 2) 576

You speak as if you live in a reality where there can be an objective third party point of view, and where physics has some kind of existence outside human imagination. How 19th century quaint.

The Copenhagen interpretation is the best we've got since the upsets by Heisenberg et al.. To whit: physics is our best imaginary model of what the Universe might be like. That's not only as good as it gets, by the very nature of things that's as good as it can ever get. There is no objective reality. It is all in your head.

Which is not to say that you cannot shape your imagination so that it is congruent with (but still separate from) somew of what is actually out there. Leading to things like the Apollo project, the Manhattan project, etc.

"I can't believe I used to think that what I thought was happening was really going on." --The Sugar Beats

Comment: Re:Oops! (Score 1) 255

by Will.Woodhull (#49035981) Attached to: Jeb Bush Publishes Thousands of Citizens' Email Addresses

Look, Jeb and Co. screwed up big time on this.

The best thing you can do for your hero is to STFU and hope that everyone forgets all about this mess before the campaign season starts to warm up. And pray that none of those whose identity has been compromised by this fiasco files a very loud law suit.

Comment: Re:Oops! (Score 1) 255

by Will.Woodhull (#49029967) Attached to: Jeb Bush Publishes Thousands of Citizens' Email Addresses

Another thing: I doubt very much that this was some IT guy's mistake. There cannot be anyone in IT at the level of this kind of decision who is not cognizant of the need to protect the privacy of private citizens. No, this was botched by some campaign guru who had been given a level of access to the databases that was well beyond his comprehension. JB is at serious fault for failure to manage his minions, and the proof of that is one of his minions just shot him in the foot. With a shotgun.

Comment: Re:Oops! (Score 1) 255

by Will.Woodhull (#49029783) Attached to: Jeb Bush Publishes Thousands of Citizens' Email Addresses

Where are you seeing evidence that the multiple reports of SSNs having been published are wrong? If that were the case it would have been hollered to the skies, for we are all very aware that the USA political Right scrutinizes the press very closely, and yells quite loudly over any hint of bias against their favorite sons.

And why do you feel that it is somehow not a problem for an aspiring Presidential candidate to be so incapable of managing his subordinates that this kind of stupid mistake could be made in his name? Do you really feel it is acceptable for someone claiming he's presidential material to give the wrong subordinate so much free rein that they could cause him this kind of headache?

A word of advice: The best thing JB supporters could do for him right now is to STFU about this snafu, and hope everyone forgets about it before the campaign season gets into full swing.

Comment: Re:what's the problem? (Score 1) 255

by Will.Woodhull (#49026873) Attached to: Jeb Bush Publishes Thousands of Citizens' Email Addresses

Did anyone else hear that "Whoosh?" I thought it was pretty loud.

"jeb@jeb.org" is almost as official as "whatmeworry@gmail.com". Or my favorite for the email harvesters: "nobody@nowhere.nul".

Gathering data piecemeal through FOIA requests is so yesterday, now that we have a highly placed politician who just lays the feast out there on a streetside table, where every black hat passer-by can help themself.

Comment: Re:what's the problem? (Score 1) 255

by Will.Woodhull (#49026453) Attached to: Jeb Bush Publishes Thousands of Citizens' Email Addresses

So its okay for a black hat to harvest email addresses in Florida by simply sending a FOIA request to the Guvner?

Oh wait, in Florida you don't even have to do that...

Jeb just lost any chance of getting my vote. Not because of what he's done, but because he has demonstrated a level of ignorance about how the world now works that is just unbelievable.

Comment: Re:Oops! (Score 1, Insightful) 255

by Will.Woodhull (#49026411) Attached to: Jeb Bush Publishes Thousands of Citizens' Email Addresses

I don't know anything about Jeb Bush. But I certainly won't be voting for him now. If he cannot be trusted to keep confidential correspondence, including Social Security numbers, confidential, then he lacks some basic values that I regard as essential in a President. Or in anyone filling just about any other elected office.

Comment: Re:RAM is no issue (Score 1) 193

by Will.Woodhull (#49014603) Attached to: Xfce Getting a New Version Soon

Why do you think that would make a difference to us who are trying to squeeze every bit of performance out of our boxen? Wasted GPU cycles are still wasted, on a machine that could be tuned to offload some of the rendering work or number crunching from the cores to the GPU.

I do some CG. A "simple" three minute animation can easily take more than 30 hours to render, even with four cores AND the GPU cooking.

There is a reason why anyoine doing serious computer work today is using one of the Linux distros.

I don't knock Windows or even Apple. If all you are doing with the computer is the same stuff your Grandma and Grandpa used to do with a pegboard accounting system and a sliderule, then by all means get a box that will play the games you enjoy. But trying to compare that OS with a serious computing OS is like trying to compare the best ever go-cart with a Formula One race car. Yeah they can run on the same track, but that's about all they have in common.

That's a really bad car analogy. About the worst I've ever heard. Really really bad.

Yeah. It was bad. The best I could do under the circumstances.

What circumstances?

Can't justify wasting any more time on this.

Oh. Yeah, I see your point.

Comment: Re:One pixel wide window borders (Score 1) 193

by Will.Woodhull (#49012779) Attached to: Xfce Getting a New Version Soon

Short answer: I am not a fanbois of Linux or any particular OS or application. It is just that I have neither the time nor the money to play around in any of the closed gardens-- the two biggest being Microsoft and Apple. In the rare occasion that I need a Microsoft only product, like upgrading my Garmin GPS, I can do that through WINE or by running Win7 in a VM, under Linux, with all the safeguards against malware or corruption of the filing system that come built into Linux.

Comment: Re:One pixel wide window borders (Score 2) 193

by Will.Woodhull (#49011361) Attached to: Xfce Getting a New Version Soon

or consume to many resources

Why, why is this still and issue? Are you using a Pentium 4 with 512MB of RAM? Otherwise I can't comprehend how on earth you would claim any OS to be "resource intensive." There's no such thing in 2015. Every OS works fine with decent hardware, and if you use computers for a living I can't believe you're not able to buy 8GB of RAM.

Spoken like someone who has never used a computer for anything that could not be done in a week's time with paper and pencil.

Computer graphics and animation. Audio editing (the high quality stuff, not mashing together lossy mp3s). Statistical analysis. To be brief, much of what is done today by many artists and small business owners. All of these are done measuably better on computers that do not waste resources on OS and GUI shiny distractions.

Force needed to accelerate 2.2lbs of cookies = 1 Fig-newton to 1 meter per second

Working...