Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 1) 163

There used to be a web page called "Your Eyes Suck at Blue". You might find it on the Wayback machine.

You can tell the luminance of each individual channel more precisely than you can perceive differences in mixed color. This is due to the difference between rod and cone cells. Your perception of the color gamut is, sorry, imprecise. I'm sure that you really can't discriminate 256 bits of blue in the presence of other, varying, colors.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 5, Insightful) 163

Rather than abuse every commenter who has not joined your specialty on Slashdot, please take the source and write about what you find.

Given that CPU and memory get less expensive over time, it is no surprise that algorithms work practically today that would not have when various standards groups started meeting. Ultimately, someone like you can state what the trade-offs are in clear English, and indeed whether they work at all, which is more productive than trading naah-naahs.

Comment That would be penny wise and pound foolish (Score 5, Insightful) 368

If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it. No more federal funds of any kind for regions currently under water!

By that logic we should just write off large swathes of the Netherlands. Dykes and berms work just fine, and we have the engineering means to keep portions of land we consider valuable dry even if the waters rise 10 or 20 feet. New Orleans would fit in this category in my opinion. It is a unique part of American heritage and a cultural gem (one of not-so-many the US possesses), well worth the investment of Federal dollars to keep around.

Not to mention that it is by far less expensive to retain land by shoring up or building new dykes, than it is to reclaim land already submerged. Not as cheap as ditching it of course, but in places where it is worthwhile (New York City, Hoboken, New Orleans, Holland, and various other places) it is much smarter to keep existing places dry than leave them to be inundated and then realize our mistake later and either lose them forever, or pay even more to reclaim them.

Comment Re:Fixed it for you. (Score 1) 440

But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just a thief stealing money from lonely, unhappy men.

But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just cheating men cheating on their wives.

I think a realist would say that Ashley Madison is just men trying to cheat on their wives but generally failing because there are no women to cheat with.

The Josh Duggar revelation took me by surprise because my first thought was "He was unfaithful, really? With who - I don't think there were any real women on that site." (Now it sounds like it was unfaithful through other venues. I wonder if he even had a genuine affair through AM. For awhile I wondered if he was just calling the act of signing up alone "unfaithful.")

Comment Re:JetBlue FTW (Score 2) 193

Norwegian do as well. But they and JetBlue are both budget airlines. It's a similar situation with hotels. Expensive business hotels will charge a substantial daily rate for internet access.

In Norwegian's case, it looks like they make up some of the cost on PPV movies. I'm guessing JetBlue does something similar.

Comment Re:Let People Have Robots (Score 1) 317

But you wouldn't do it that way. It would be like leasing your car to a Taxi company. Taxi companies have their own fleets!

If you had a factory, why would you be hiring robots from the general public? Why not buy your own, or lease (with a maintenance contract) them from a robot leasing company? That way you get use of the robots 24/7, get to take advantage of efficiencies of scale and can be sure of a standard, predictable robot.

Comment Re:Lovely summary. (Score 1) 1030

Except given that they treated a non-puppy work much more harshly than has ever been the case before. It is much more likely that the new influx of people are harsher judges than the usual voters.

Why was there a sudden influx of particularly harsh judges this year? And was "The Day the World Turned Upside Down" really so much better than the others? The abrupt increase here seems to be more likely caused by political choices than a change in vote attitudes.

*everything* scores well on good reads. 50 shades of bad writing got a nice big 3.7 out of 5. Good reads is not a good indication of quality.

Fan awards are not about quality! NHave you read some of the winners?

If there was a fan award aimed at the demographic that tends to like bad Twilight fanfic, you can be sure 50 Shades would be nominated.

Comment Re:Lovely summary. (Score 1) 1030

Many voters, perhaps treated them equally, but "The Day the World Turned Upside Down" did get a lot more votes than any of the puppies. The high number of "no awards" could be put down to lazy protestors.

The Novellas seem to have scored pretty well on goodreads - broadly as well as the non-puppy entries that didn't make it - yet the Hugo voters clobbered them. Even tripe like "Opera Vita Aeterna" managed to beat "no award" in 2014. I can't believe they were all worse than that this year.

Of course, goodreads isn't an objective measure of quality but one would expect that it would be broadly similar to that of Worldcon membership.

Comment Re:are the nominees any good? (Score 2) 1030

Not read this year's

Last year's puppy slate tended towards pulpy action adventure rather than more philosophical works. So better is subjective - some people like action. Personally I didn't care for them too much but then I found the best Novel winner didn't thrill me either.

Comment Re:WIRED has it right (Score 1) 1030

The corruption is not from who can vote but who nominates and how organised they are.

Only people who read a lot will nominate. You need to have read a lot of works to have a good indication. The argument is that there's an informal clique that nominates the same work. This gets strawmanned as some sort of conspiracy.

I have no idea if such a clique exists. What I can say is that the Dramatic presentation (short form) seems to get a lot of nominations for Doctor Who. It's unlikely that these are coming from different people. More likely that the same set of fans are picking the same episodes. Do you think there may be a Doctor Who clique?

Sad puppies was a conspiracy. Intentionally so. Part of the aim was to demonstrate how broken the nominations system is. I'd say it did that job well.

As for the voting - 2015 statistics compared with 2014 stats. Take for example best Novella. Voting numbers up by 2638. All entries except "no award" seem to have comparable number of votes to the previous year. No award gets more than half the votes. Were the entries *really* that bad?

There's nothing wrong with campaigning, but the suggestion that there wasn't a concerted campaign to prevent people who have the wrong politics from winning an award stretches credibility.

All Finagle Laws may be bypassed by learning the simple art of doing without thinking.