Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Re:Let's put some numbers on that... (Score 1) 337

One nice thing about low, constant, levels of ionizing radiation is that they actually slightly REDUCE the incidence of cancer and the like. (This is part of why Denver residents don't have horrible cancer rates compared to those living nearer sea level.) Apparently the ionizing radiation provokes the production of inducible enzymes that repair DNA and scavenge free radicals - preventing more damage from both radiation and free radicals from the cell's own energy production than the radiation causes. Up to the saturation of the induciblity it's a slight net gain. Unfortunately, the neutrino flux from fusion reactors would be too low to confer this benefit.

How's that kool-aid you're drinking? I think there isn't a strong conclusion on really low doses but that doesn't mean that they are safe.

There is evidence that pre-exposure can help with an exposure, but the pre-exposure still causes health effects. There is also in interesting NBER paper showing health effects that are higher than an LNT model would predict.

Comment Re:True, in a sense... (Score 1) 124

I might also mention that while I have a camera in my smart phones, I prefer my point and shoot or DSLR.

While the current gen of phones do take pictures perhaps even better than the point and shoots of old they aren't really up to snuff relative to the current gen of point and shoots, the GoPro. Also, neither can touch the DSLR for image quality. But the DSLR is really heavy and expensive enough that you have to think about theft whenever you have it outside of the house, so it's a real pain.

Comment Re:True, in a sense... (Score 2) 124

I think it's really interesting how I'm moderated for this. 50% interesting 30% overrated and 20% troll. There is a lot of passion here about me being wrong.

Or perhaps it's the /. revulsion to having Windows take over. Pretty bad, in my mind, but the only thing worse would be Andriod with its total lack of privacy controls.

Comment Re:True, in a sense... (Score 2, Interesting) 124

The Internet of Things is something Bill Gates wrote about 20 years ago and it's about as close to reality as it was then. The real issue is that we need an embeddable computer that runs Windows (don't laugh, it's what people know) and costs about $0.05, maybe $0.25 is good enough, but I doubt it. Then We'll start to see the Internet of Things take off.

I have literally zero things that are not internet enabled that I wish were internet enabled. If someone offered me an enabled and non-enabled device I'd take the non-enabled device every time. It's one fewer thing to break and my device is that much less likely to get hacked and broken.

So, basically, it will have to get to the point where everything is enabled for me to buy these things. That will happen when a computer costs basically nothing $0.05 is basically nothing.

Comment Re:Just use OpenBSD, for crying out loud! (Score 1) 91

There are several other problems.

1) When you come back to enter more data and expect the fields to be populated (the form takes a day or two to fill out the first time).
2) When you need access to something and the manager of that element has to look at your file to approve it.
3) When you get a new security manager and they have to approve it.

Your basically taking us back to the paper office days. In that time it was really easy to not put two and two together because cross referencing information was really hard.

Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?

Working...