Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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:Fair and impartial? (Score 1) 567

by BarbaraHudson (#49180377) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial
One thing I would point out that he gave them to point out to the American people the extent to which the government was violating the constitutiion; there was no way to do that without the whole world knowing (including the ruskies and the chinese). And, of course, if the government hadn't been breaking the law and the constitution, none of this would have happened, and it's to prevent the USA from becoming another North Korea / USSR / China.

And then to ask the same question that's been asked about the banks - why not a single conviction for the law-breakers.

Comment: Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score 1) 49

by swillden (#49180351) Attached to: Linux 4.0 Getting No-Reboot Patching

It's no more a risk than current patching that requires a reboot, except that you don't have the downtime of a reboot.

Sure, if your concern is error, rather than malice. An attacker who gains root could use this to dynamically patch a backdoor into the running kernel. Rebooting the machine would potentially enable someone to notice.

As another poster noted, though, you can already dynamically patch the kernel for malicious purposes by loading a malicious module, assuming that hasn't been disabled. In contexts where security is crucial, I would disable both dynamic module loading and run-time patching.

Comment: Re:The thing about witch hunts... (Score 1) 312

Excellent point. Really weird that she's hated for something she didn't even say. What she said:

Her offense: “It’s time,” she said, “for all the women in America and all the men that love women, and all the gay people, and all the people of color that we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.”

What h8ters turned it into:

“It is definitely not time for ‘all the gay people’ and ‘all the people of color’ to set aside their own battle for equality in order to fight for straight, white women now,” thundered Amanda Marcotte in a piece for Slate titled, “Patricia Arquette’s Feminism: Only for White Women.”

Nowhere did she say that those other battles should be set aside. And yet, as you pointed out, people with an agenda to make money and engage in self-promotion are there right out of the gate.

H8ters gotta hate, but that's no excuse for everyone else to turn off the grey matter :-)

In my piece defending Hannan from those accusing him of murder, I had quoted a well-known transgender activist who, parting with many of her fellow transsexuals, told me that Hannan “did a good job” for “follow[ing] a mystery.” But none of this mattered. I was summarily derided for my “privilege,” inherent in the fact, I was repeatedly told, of my being white and gay, and ordered to prostrate myself before, and apologize to, the victimized trans community at large. On Twitter, The Nation’s sports columnist asked aloud if there were “any defenseless person you won’t shit on,” before Jew-baiting me for good measure, rhetorically asking, “if you could write an article destroying a transgender child in Gaza, would that make your day, month, or year?” (Trans, if you haven’t yet figured it out, beats gay and Jew.)

I agree with the author. Hannan followed the facts. Big deal. It's the same with Briana Wu, who continues a long line of what I call overdoing it when it comes to being an m2f transsexual (while denying it). Many, when we shed the pretense of what we are not, instead of just "being who we are", put on an exaggerated pretense of what we believe society sees as a woman - right down to becoming hyper-feminists as a way to assert that we really are women.

For some, it's a temporary state; for others, it becomes a form of misandry and a way to beat up on critics by invoking political correctness. And, of course, if they can get your 15 minutes of fame by being a professional victim ...

I agree with the last paragraph. Then again, I've been calling it "anti-social media" since the turn of the century, so what do I know :-)

Comment: Re:Daily Treadmill (Score 1) 79

by jellomizer (#49180151) Attached to: Treadmill Performance Predicts Mortality

Well that group of people who are fit, have altered their workout to have cardio exercise without using their legs.
If you have legs that allow you to be mobile, then the best cardio exercise is moderately high intensity, low resistance, that gets your heart rate up for a long time. Humans have evolved to hunt prey not by running faster than them, but tiring them out. While that bison can run 20 mph vs our 10mph, if in decent condition we can maintain that speed for about 5 minutes, while the bison may be able to keep that speed for 1 minute. So we just force them to run until they collapse. If you cut that speed down a bit you can go on exponentially longer. Running for hours at 5 mph.

Comment: Re:Refactoring done right happens as you go (Score 1) 201

by BarbaraHudson (#49180045) Attached to: Study: Refactoring Doesn't Improve Code Quality

But you still have to start with the data. Algorithms by themselves are meaningless. The data structure can be modified to accommodate more efficient algorithms, but without the original data structures, you've no real place to start, whether it's a census database or the attributes of a character in an RPG.

And the problem with making your data too tightly coupled to the algorithms is that because they are now more tightly coupled, you might find yourself in a jam when changes have to be made to the data structures.

They should NOT be "so tightly bound together that you can't DO them separately".

Comment: Re:Classic Case (Score 2) 60

by BarbaraHudson (#49179913) Attached to: Technology's Legacy: the 'Loser Edit' Awaits Us All

It's why the EU right to have old, irrelevant search results is so important. Society has to forgive and forget, otherwise lives are ruined by one or two mistakes. It's great that machines remember everything for us, but also terrible.

I would say it's the opposite - that if everyone has their mistakes on parade, then it' makes it easier for others can admit that they too aren't perfect. Instead of trying to appear what we're not, we should be more interested in being who we are, warts and all, and encouraging others to do the same.

It wasn't that long ago that a woman who was raped was considered "ruined for life." By speaking out about it instead of trying to hide it, that is no longer the case. Same with gays and lesbians that used to have to hide in the closet. We can't go on wasting lives with some false idea that if you can get people to forget about it, you don't have to deal with it.

We simply can't advance, either as individuals or a society, if we actively "forget" anything that society labels a "mistake." Imagine a world where everyone can't throw rocks because everyone else knows the rock-throwers are also not so perfect.

Comment: Re:Hey Roblimo: Make a "loser edit" autobiography! (Score 2) 60

by BarbaraHudson (#49179839) Attached to: Technology's Legacy: the 'Loser Edit' Awaits Us All

Oh wait, every video that you make featuring your li'l buddy Timmyboy is a loser edit. Dice, PLEASE fire these guys. Timmyboy is still very proud of his "journalism degree." He JUST DOESN'T GET IT.

The job of an editor is NOT to just present stories that go along with the group-think of the day. We have Faux News and their ilk for that. Also, if they edit submissions too much "for clarity" the submitter will complain that's not what they wrote. So what are you going to do?

People were originally upset when SciAm started publishing articles about things like the politics behind nuclear weapons control back in (IIRC) the '80s. I was one of them, but one day there was one that caught my attention, was interesting, etc. - so I stopped my complaining.

Sure, some of the articles posted are of low quality ... I regularly up-vote them if they're stupidity like the Ask Slashdot "I heard there was money in app development" / "How can I interest my 2-year-old in programming" / etc., because they ARE stupid, but if they don't see the light of day, we'll never get to give the poster (and others with similar bad/naive ideas) a whack with the ol' clue-by-four. Not everything posted should agree with your world view or what you consider is acceptable news.

Comment: Re:I'm healthy... (Score 1, Interesting) 79

by jellomizer (#49179829) Attached to: Treadmill Performance Predicts Mortality

Genes are a factor but not as great as you like them to be. The I have bad Genes argument is a copout towards working towards a better life. Your environment, has a major effect as well, and you have luck too. Changing your environment helps your odds.

Lets say everytime you smoke a cigarette you have a 1 in 500,000 chance of getting lung cancer. Lets say your genes make you more resistant so you may have 1 in 600,000 chance instead. So if you have good genes and you smoke a packs of cigarettes a day that is 20 chances in that 1 in 600,000 a day. If you have the average genes, and you don't smoke then you may get 1 chance every week from second hand smoke.

The evidence of the person who lived a long life despite having a risk factors may be due to just dumb luck, combined with other positive lifestyle choices not mentioned to get the overall odds up.

Also what you may call a bad Gene isn't necessarily a bad gene, but they are designed for a life style that we are not living.
There are people who keep on eating junk food and stay skinny, their body has a high metabolism. With our culture that seems like a good thing, however for these people if they are late for their meal or cannot eat, they merely go into a panic, their body had used up more energy then they took in, and they just used that energy for silly things, such as shaking their leg while sitting, or creating more body heat. Then you have someone with a slower metabolism, that means they will be tend to be heavier, and store extra fat, this extra fat can cause health issues. However if they are unable to eat for a while they are not in such a shock. Now if you have a slow metabolism, and you need to manage the risks of being fat, then you need to exercise, to force your metabolism to go up for while and burn fat, and/or adjust your diet to insure you are just taking in the amount your body needs.

That Gym membership doesn't change your Genes, but if you use that Gym membership, it will help you work with what your genes had evolved you to do.

One can't proceed from the informal to the formal by formal means.

Working...