Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:Now we need... (Score 1) 169

> I think if 4 billion humans dropped dead next week, we'd all be better off long-term.
> 4 billion humans dropped dead
> we'd all be better off
> 4 billion ... dead ... all be better off

So trivially we wouldn't "all" be better off, because this plan involves extinction of 2/3rds of humans, and they would assuredly be much worse off (being dead). It seems unlikely that the remaining third would be all that much happier about the situation.

I don't think your sentiment is all that common. Interestingly, the folks who believe it don't seem to start with the obvious (offing themselves), but instead find some religious purpose in subtly trying to spread this genocidal misanthropic philosophy.

Well, let me offer you an assertion: No, we wouldn't be better off. We'd be much worse off. The inability to act against a bunch of vague potential threats is more of a feature of our species, not a bug. It serves as a drive to develop systems where people, in contributing to the system, help both themselves and those around them. The only reason we can support this many humans enjoying life at the same time is because a lot of these systems already exist, in some imperfect form or another, and they have vastly decreased human suffering and increased human pleasure over a very brief window in history for humanity.

The reason the philosophy is so dangerous is that it encourages potential mass murderers to conspire with some nebulous goal of "future improvements". You can literally justify *anything* with such a philosophy. Why not focus on things that definitely help now and almost assuredly help later, instead of assuredly cause untold anguish, and maybe "help" later? It seems that the focus is driven by an intense desire to see others come to harm. The "we'd all be better off" is just to try to sell the poison.

Comment Re:At how many kbps? (Score 1) 171

All true, but how relevant? The problem with Flash wasn't homestar runner, nor youtube, but all the myraid bugs and exploits and need to oversupport stuff. If you want a solution to play a thing, the solution could be "send a recording", or it could be "transmit a script to people living there who will obey it implicitly". Sure, the script is shorter, but you risk an "OUT, VILE JELLY" sort of thing happening to you...

Comment Re:Sensationalistic (Score 1) 611

> how can parts of Islam not predate Mohammed?

I didn't say that. I said: "Some parts of the Koran predate Mohammad" would be the results of the claim.

No one (including even fundamentalist Muslims) would claim that Islam didn't come out of Judaism and/ore Christianity- they have talk of "prophets", etc. Muslims I think believe Jesus was a prophet or something? I would say that the differences are more than just linguistic, however.

Comment Re:Six and a half ways to fail. (Score 1) 205

1)- Right, but you WOULD be interested in the same power at higher initial cost, as long as it made that cost up later in efficiency, right? I don't think there's much of that being pointed out by the site, but you'd consider spending an extra 300 bucks initially if it was saving you 15 bucks a month, right?
2)- Sleep states can go to hell. No reason to risk anything by using them in general.
3)- Disagree. Gaming machines are often quite beastly. It's partially a compliment.

I'm interested in the following things when building a gaming PC:

1- Component lifespan. I want pieces that won't break. I once bought a top of the line card that started having issues a couple months in. Burned me pretty hard.
2- Power. I want a machine that impresses me and anyone who sees it while it is new.
3- Heat dispersion. I hate any machine that cuts corners to try to pretend that heat isn't an issue. Heat will destroy my machine, and before that, my framerate.

Efficiency is mostly a part of (3) for me. I'd consider it to some degree, but it's a tertiary consideration.

Comment Re:And? (Score 1) 205

Nailed it.
Also if you look at their graphs, there's nothing in there that is high power and efficient.

Their efficiency metric- watts divided by fps- is a pretty odd spec (the unitless efficiency is output power over input power, so you'd at least expect a high efficiency number to mean something is more efficient, not less).

The bigger part is this: it shows that computers that use more power deliver more performance, and that there aren't really any exceptions to this. The top performer is the most power using guy. The bottom performer uses the least power. Trying to sort by "efficiency" is noble, but not helpful.

A gamer will buy the best machine he can afford. It would be interesting if, for a given level of performance, the site could pick out something that, while possibly costing more, would save you money over a year. Again, FOR A GIVEN LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE. The performance needs to be the benchmark, and the performance for a given dollar is also important- you might be willing to pay more upfront for something more efficient, if that was offered, but ONLY if it was as fast as the other options.

Additionally, a lot of gamers will assemble a box based on off the shelf components. Often, they will pick a much bigger power supply than needed, which decreases efficiency- but I do this and feel it to be totally and completely rational. Because the bigger power supplies are generally more reliable, that slight inefficiency is just a small insurance policy (and costs almost nothing). If you are picking an efficient and big power supply, you are probably already doing things correctly.

Parts of the site are noble- while the power supply comparison is helpful, you're probably going to look at efficiency when buying one anyway. Meanwhile, it's much harder to suss out 'efficiency' from CPUs- they mostly just use clock speed. In practice, you'll buy the best CPU you can afford, trading off between CPU and graphics card based on the types of games you play.

The meat of the comparison points is the graphics card. That's the crown jewel of any gaming PC. But is "watts per teraflops" going to really answer which one you should grab? Lets say you are in the market to spend 300-350 on a graphics card, and you are considering a GTX 970. That's a strong pick, can we get more efficient? Well, the GTX 980 is more efficient, but the metric changes from 33 watts per teraflop to 36.3 watts per teraflop. Ok, what does that translate to in dollars?

Well, the two in question are already pretty goddamned efficient by the standards of graphics cards, using 145 and 165 watts. The higher performing card even has the 145 watt signature! Ok, so that's 20 watts. Lets assume that this guy is on and running hard for 15 solid days out of a month, a ludicrous assumption. If you pay a high price of 20 cents per kwh, this is... a buck fifty of savings per month.

But the 970 costs like 350, and the 980 like 650. You'll never make that cost difference up in the lifetime of the product.

If you're building your own PC, this site is useful to help you pick out good quality components, which also seem to have a lot of efficiency and can push frames. That's nice, but I suspect that the difference between using this site and not is pretty small.

Comment Sensationalistic (Score 3, Insightful) 611

First, no, they believe that the parchment may have been made between those times.

Second, this is carbon dating, and we are talking about drama involving a couple decades.

From most to least likely, as best I can tell:

1- The carbon dating is off by a couple years. This is extremely likely, especially given that Islamic events *mostly* take place in the light of history (with the typical religious spin regarding their accuracy, of course). They did not date the ink itself, something that the scientists point out but gets lightly treated in media.
2- The parchment, a very valuable and frequently reused substance, was around a few years before being written on. This assumes that the carbon dating is totally accurate. Remember this isn't the difference between something being ten million years old and some guy claiming the earth is 4k years old- this is not a very long time at all. Nor is it like from 200 AD or anything, either.
3- Some parts of the Koran predate Mohammad Since this is just a very small part of the Koran, this is the most interesting claim, but neither is it as the headline is spinning it. While Muslim fundamentalists will fight this conclusion, they have a pretty reasonable leg to stand on- so far, at least. Even if they are wrong and parts of the Koran were repurposed to back some new militant religion, is that really that surprising to the rest of us?

Certainly interesting, but nowhere near as impactful as the headlines sound on this.

Also note, their p is that 5% thing- they are 94.5% sure, meaning they are wrong 1/20th of the time. That means that out of all the 95% confidence claims, 1/20 are wrong- and those would always be the most sensational.

Hey, speaking of sensational, why is the link to daily mail? This is all over the net, is that the best source?

Also, I'm still not sure what dates are being claimed- each article seems to have slightly different ranges?

Comment Re:Germany wants a lot... (Score 1) 722

> Do you think that hate speech should not be removed from FB? Interesting.

I don't think that there's any such thing as "hate speech". I think that's a term created to ban speech, long in a line of reasons to ban speech.

Now, Germany doesn't have a first amendment- its equivalent calls out from the start that it has restrictions. It's also in line with the European model- "this clause GRANTS people the ability to do X"- versus the American model of "the government can NEVER pass a law stopping X", and as such comes from the idea that the government is handing out rights to begin with.

Comment Re:Brought about by the internet? (Score 4, Insightful) 722

I think he *does* believe it "as an American". The value in question is a strong veneration of the bill of rights. The first amendment in particular has been used to craft or interpret a series of laws that have been wildly beneficial- from allowing religious competition under a secular field, to allowing unpopular opinions to be voiced and protected. Given how many misconceptions were accepted as fact in the past (all visible in hindsight), it doesn't appear to be helpful to prevent the expression of things that we "know are wrong", because history shows that any policy that can block a wrong opinion will also, without question, block a correct one.

Comment Re:Does it have to be in China? (Score 1) 134

Lol was looking for this comment. Sad I had to scroll down for it, and not find it modded up yet.

I'm pretty sure it would be a lot more expensive. The stuff they get away with in China is literally criminal over here. How much more, I don't know- no one is making them to compare.

Comment So if I'm CEO at a tech company, block google? (Score 2) 182

Is it now rational for a CEO at a tech company to insist that google searches be blocked? I mean, your programmers are searching for solutions to stuff a lot, and you wouldn't want google to take the fact that they are searching for solutions and....

1)- Directly recruit your top men.
2)- Figure out what you are working on.
3)- Hey, google knows a lot about the people who are logged into it. They can probably flag by race and sex pretty easily...

If you're in charge of programmers at any level, do you now have to weight the possibility that the tools you supply them will be used to recruit them away from you? Do you have to weight the advantages of letting your programmers have access to a superior search versus the cons of that superior search poaching your peeps?

Comment Re:/facepalm (Score 1) 425

> , but nearly every single privacy invasive feature can be turned off

I was going to call you a liar, until I saw the qualifier "nearly". In fact, we don't know all the things that can't be turned off. We just know about a lot of them. Note also that the methods to turn them off often only appear to work (ex: turning telemetry off in the registry only works in Enterprise, in Pro or Home or anything that a mere non-corporation can legally own, the setting is ignored).

Anyway, the reason I'm responding is because you talk about a "conspiracy theory". Don't use those words. That's not what this is.

This is OBSERVED data leaving your box, for reasons that don't help YOU in any way, and can ONLY be used to hurt you, with NO supported way to disable them. Microsoft is willing to ignore networking standards and the best interests of their customers to do this.

It's not a "conspiracy", because it's a known entity- Microsoft.

It's not a "theory", because it's not an "unproven thing" or a "framework for discussion". It's observed. You can observe it yourself, should you so desire.

The leaking is tremendous. Simply watching the network traffic on Windows 10 reveals vastly more about the user than you would expect, and that's before even caring about what's IN the goddamned network traffic.

Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.