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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Ouya 2 (Score 1) 19

This looks like a bigger, beefed-up version of an Ouya.

If it's halfway competent and doesn't try to lock you into using their shitty store and launcher, then all it will need is a real recovery to be everything the Ouya wasn't.

I bought Ouya, it was unremitting shit and didn't even work right, so I took it back. I won't preorder Android hardware again (I didn't kickstart, just preordered Ouya from a store, so I could return that POS) but I will give this machine a go if it reviews well.

Comment: Re:Waste of Time & Money (Score 1) 267

I'm not outright against some manned missions, I just don't think they should be our top priority and shouldn't crowd out robotic exploration of new places. A manned "space race" is unlikely to get us much relative to other options.

In addition to the robotic missions I mentioned, powerful telescopes that can detect and do spectrographic analysis of planets of other star systems would be far better science than more manned missions to local rocks. We could detect another Earth with clear-cut life signs, for example. That would be a bigger discovery than simple microbes on Mars (which robotic sample return missions can perform).

There would be no Saturn V, no Falcon HR etc.

They are cool in the "wow, big!" sense, but maybe we don't really need them right now.

Comment: Re:Then let us sue the government! (Score 1) 85

by Theaetetus (#49801941) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Patent Troll

That survey only looked at patents issued on a single day. There are still a couple hundred thousand unexamined patents from the 80s and 90s .. what will the patent term adjustment look like when they issue?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

Nothing, because those patents don't get patent term adjustment. And while, yes, there are still a few patent applications floating around from that era, that law was changed 20 years ago. It's already been taken care of for everything since then, and since you can't apply it retroactively, there's nothing more that can be done.

Comment: Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* (Score 1) 77

by drinkypoo (#49800587) Attached to: Emulator Now Runs x86 Apps On All Raspberry Pi Models

What the fuck ever happened to "program", "application", "software", or "code"?

It's never been unusual to call a program an application even in the Unix or PC world, but it's been standard to call programs "apps" in the Mac community since forever, because they have been known as "applications" in the official MacOS system parlance since forever - hence the file type flag of APPL and not PROG, SOFT, or CODE.

Comment: Re:Will This Fight Ever End? (Score 1) 555

AC is great for long distance and certain applications. DC is great locally. The bridge rectifier should be between the grid & the home battery, not between the home battery and the devices it is recharging and/or powering.

The exception to this are high power home applications: Stove, Oven, Microwave, Toaster, Fridge, Dryer, Washing Machine, Dishwasher. The battery charger can be on the same circuit set.

Note that TV is NOT on this list. All video screens can be low power these days. All lighting can be low power. There is no reason why this can't be a simple 5V, 4A circuit with USB compatible plugs, several to a room.

Comment: There really is an amazingly simple answer... (Score 1) 630

by fzammett (#49800381) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happens If We Perfect Age Reversing?

Everyone is making a big deal out of a "problem" that is ridiculously simple to solve:

Every government on Earth says to its citizens: "You can either get this treatment that will make you live this much longer... OR you can have children... but you CANNOT have both." Have a police force charged with enforcing this rule, and nothing more. Make the penalty for disobeying EXTREMELY harsh... like forced abortion, or the child can live but both parents are put to death right after.

Sound harsh? Nope, it's a choice for every single person, nobody is forced into anything.

Think it won't work? It ABSOLUTELY will, and here's why: humans, the VAST majority, are at their core selfish beings. Given the choice between living hundreds of years, or maybe even indefinitely, or having children, MOST of them are going to choose the selfish option and say they'll give up having kids. Guaranteed.

Now, before you say it, this plan needs some tweaks to cover all the bases... for example, there's got to be some minimum age where this decision is made. Is is 18? 21? You want someone to be old enough to make a proper decision of course... but then, what do you do with anyone who has a kid BEFORE that age? I'd suggest maybe a stiff fine, stiff enough to dissuade MOST people from having a kid before the designated age, but you're still going to have some and we don't want to be killing teens, right? But, teen pregnancy has been on the decline anyway, so it seems that education works, so it's probably not a dealbreaker.

Do we perhaps make people have to undergo a procedure to render them unable to have children when they decide? Would certainly make he policing requirement less, but that might be a bit much... worth debating at least.

Of course, you still have to ensure enough people do procreate to keep the species genetically viable and not stagnate... maybe a lottery? Half the population gets to live forever, half have to procreate, and it's all random? Hmm, lots of chances for abuse of course, and that aside, it kinda hurts my "democracy" brain that says everyone should have an equal chance at the good life... maybe just limit it? Like, if you get picked to have kids you can only have one, and you only get to live an extra 200 years or something? That might seem like a good trade-off right now, but when the average lifespan is 1,000 years it's not going to seem like such a good deal.

So yeah, I'm not saying there aren't some holes that have to be plugged to make it all work right, but the point is if you simply give people the choice between children and a massive increase in their own lifespan, the basic problem is going to solve itself based on nothing but simple human nature, that's the bottom line.

Comment: Re:Money class, breeder class (Score 1) 630

by Grishnakh (#49800021) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happens If We Perfect Age Reversing?

That's just plain ridiculous. Countries with the highest quality of life still have people reproducing, just not in huge numbers. So instead of 3-8 kids per couple average, we have 0-2 kids, and end up with a bit less than replacement rate. The only reason populations are expanding is because of immigration.

Eliminate immigration for the most part, and greatly extend lifespans, and you'll still see a stable population.

Comment: Re:Money class, breeder class (Score 1) 630

by Grishnakh (#49799989) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happens If We Perfect Age Reversing?

If everybody gets to live a very long time, then we run out of resources

That entirely depends on the birth and death rates. Eliminating aging won't keep you from dying when a bus hits you. And we've found over and over that when people live comfortable, middle-class lifestyles with a proper education, they generally don't want to have a ton of kids any more. Every western country (plus Japan) is experiencing ZPG right now except for immigration.

If we figure out how to curb over-population and only the really old live, then we run out of viable sperm and eggs in a few generations

You're assuming we won't figure out how to reproduce artificially. That's a really bad assumption. If we can figure out how to stop or reverse aging, you don't think we can figure out how to continue to reproduce with artificial means (or even how to rejuvenate the gonads)?

unless we figure out how to dodge the who reproduction via sperm and eggs thing

Lots of people are already doing that: IVF, frozen sperm and eggs, etc. If for some weird reason we can figure out how to reverse aging in every part of the body *except* the testes/ovaries, you don't think we'd just automatically freeze people's sperm and eggs when they're young?

One thing that could potentially change this entire equation would be extending the range in which humans can live, whether it be orbital habitats, terraformed planets or cozy lintel asteroids.

I don't see why those things couldn't be built. We're just too lazy to make them right now, since we'd rather fight wars with each other over religious idiocy and the like.

But even before any of that is doable, the population thing is a red-herring. Most likely, anti-aging treatments will be expensive, so will be confined to wealthier people, which mainly means westerners, and richer Asians. These people are *already* not having many kids. All the western nations would have to do is stop all immigration, which would immediately give them negative population growth (with current conditions), and then with much greater lifespans, they'll have zero population growth, or maybe slightly positive.

It's not like anti-aging treatments are going to make everyone suddenly want to emulate the Duggars.

Comment: Re: Exodus (Score 1) 630

by Grishnakh (#49799895) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happens If We Perfect Age Reversing?

You obviously aren't understanding the science behind anti-aging. The whole idea is that your body stays youthful; all the mechanisms in it which repair things work optimally, all the time, instead of falling apart with age like they do now (go find some small kid and a middle aged person, cut them both the same way, and then see how they heal differently). Though teeth might need to be replaced with implants, but most westerners these days have artificial parts in their teeth starting at rather young ages, either fillings or crowns. I challenge you to find me a 40-year-old without some dental work. Anyway, there's no need for artificial hips when you've figured out how to make the body repair itself properly. This might require periodic application of some kind of drug, or permanently-installed nanites, who knows? But no, most likely the future does not involve a bunch of old people with mostly-artificial bodies.

Comment: Re:I'm sure /. will ridicule it, but... (Score 2) 295

BTW, you call chemistry "basic"? Why is chemistry of any practical use to anyone but anyone but a chemist? I can't recall a single instance in my life when I had to apply any sort of chemistry-based knowledge.

Sigh. I'm shit at math but I can easily recognize many places where more math would improve my life, especially since I like to make things and customize them. By the same token I never got any chemistry (it was not required, and by the time I got to college I had other interests) but I can recognize that it would be cool to have more of it. Even cooking is chemistry, and a lot of that fancy-pants "molecular gastronomy" (what, other food doesn't have molecules?) stuff is applicable to more mundane foods. Or looking at the back of the shampoo bottle and knowing the difference between one thing and the next.

Let's apply that same logic to computer programming. How often are these kids going to be interacting with computers in their lifetimes?

A lot more deeply, odds are, if they're programmers. That's the point of teaching them young.

Might it not be handy to understand how those computers work, and perhaps even know how to write scripts to automate tasks, for instance?

Yeah, but you could do that without learning a whole lot about programming, simple if-then-else and pattern matching will cover most needs there. But programming is still very valuable. On the flip side, not all the kids will take to it, so spending a lot of time on it is probably a bad idea. They only make you spend a year or so on a foreign language (if that) in school, programming probably ought to receive about the same amount of mandatory attention.

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...