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


Forgot your password?

Comment $100k/year (Score 1) 842

Set up an account that transfers to you $100K, adjusted for inflation, every year, for 40 years, and which you cannot change afterwards. That's $4M. You may live longer than that but you'll need to save. Form a research/charity/whatever organization of your liking -- say, to finance teleportation research -- where you are on the board with 25% of the vote and transfer the rest of the money to this organization. Announce that to everyone, so your life is back to normal, you'll still find incentive to work, and you may contribute to something exciting.

Comment Re:Comparison? (Score 1) 257

Medicine is more of a "fuzzy" science, where its findings, theories and models -- i.e. its "truth" -- have much lower confidence value assigned to them compared to physics, but higher than psychology/sociology. (Journalists and people who yell "the science is settled!" ignore this confidence value.)

In my view that's a natural reflection of how patterns are fewer in physical world and thus easier to repeat, compared to living organisms, especially higher orders like mammals, and compared to mind/society stuff on the other end of the scale.

Comment Re:Ethan doesn't understand relativistic time (Score 1) 139

Thought the same when I read "we don't see those galaxies as they are *today*." Today where? I think people fall in that trap by drawing a sketch of the entire universe on a sheet of paper, and as that sheet fits in their field of view entirely, they forget there is no universal now.

Comment Is there any evidence that web ads work? (Score 3, Interesting) 394

I mean the ones served "in passing". It just seems so counter-intuitive that someone would open a page to read an article or see pics and then ignore that thing and go read or watch the ad and click on it and remember any of it, let alone actually buy something.

I don't have AdBlock in one of the four browsers I run (Sandboxied Chrome -- the others are Sandboxied FF with no flash, non-Sandboxied FF with Noscript, and non-Sandboxied Chrome that I only use for 3-4 sites), and don't remember seeing anything remotely relevant or interesting, except for a couple of youtube ads, or ads for goods I already found and bought on Amazon. And I have clicked on an ad and bought something a number of times when I was searching for the item on Google, in the mindset of wanting to buy. Though I often end up going to Amazon and buying the item there.

Facebook in that sense seems the worst, no one is in a mindset to buy, they are just looking to score a bit of interesting info or pic from "friends". Imagine watching porn and seeing an ad on the side for 15% off for iphone cases. Well you most likely wouldn't even see the ad.

Anyway that's one datapoint. The 1st google search on "do web ads work" gives this ("A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All?") Prob. another case where Betteridge's law holds.

Comment Re:No Foul play... (Score 1) 173

Paid for the law in its current strict form by content owners and distributors. And btw if 99% were to vote for abolishing the copyright law, you can't attribute it to no one understanding the complex issue -- that's a valid argument only when the perception is split.

If people would be really as disappointed as you describe, then have another referendum in 10 years and ask them do they want the copyright law back. Given the latest formulaic crap that's been made in the last few years, I don't think we'd be at much of a loss for that decade. And artists who just had to make art would make it anyway.

Comment Re:Mechanism? (Score 1) 184

Well, listed SAR values seem to be higher for your average phone today. Here's the 2005 listing: http://cellphoneradiationprote...
and here's the 2014 (flagship) list:

Most people in the US and Europe seem to have smartphones and most of those are high up SAR-wise.

Comment Re:Mechanism? (Score 2) 184

But smartphones with stronger radiation and ultrafast processors and whatnot have been around for a relatively short time.

Here, I just randomly picked a popular phone from 2006, Morotola Razr, and Motorola Turbo Droid, from 2014:

Razr SAR rating:

0.31 W/kg
Measured in:
1900 MHz
0.35 W/kg
Measured in:
1900 MHz

Droid Turbo SAR rating:
SAR US 1.39 W/kg (head) 0.50 W/kg (body)

Just two points but I imagine more search would show the trend is that SAR is getting higher.

I assume there is a point where harm begins to show -- imagine you build a phone with SAR rating of 100W/kg and use it every day. Would the effect show in 100 years, 50 years, 10, 1, six months...? So the question is where that point is for the what seems like a very common 1.39W/kg.

And then there is the question how reliable SAR is as a measure of effect of radiation on the tissue. From the Wiki page: "SAR limits set by law don't consider that the human body is particularly sensitive to the power peaks or frequencies responsible for the microwave hearing effect.[5][6] Frey reports that the microwave hearing effect occurs with average power density exposures of 400 w/cm2, well below SAR limits (as set by government regulations)"

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that not enough time has passed for the new generation of phones to rely on it as evidence of safety.

Comment Re:As Compared to What? (Score 1) 296

As compared to no experience, and no degree, I'd say yes.

I think it's an even stronger no. If the person wanted to learn say JavaScript, and they chose the most formal, most rigid and the least creative and inspiring way to learn it by working to get a certificate -- instead of building a project and putting it up out there, for instance -- shows what kind of developer they will be: someone who cares less for making good software and more for playing carefully within the system.

I'd trust more someone who spent the time to train for a marathon than to get a certificate.

Dinosaurs aren't extinct. They've just learned to hide in the trees.