Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Ignorant stereotyping (Score 0) 129 129

The MIT nerds are just ignorantly stereotyping BBQ chefs. You'd figure that they of all people would be sensitive about looking down on others, but I guess not. BBQ chefs aren't morons who use old oil barrels for pits (they're not food grade and will make your food taste like shit). If they do reuse an old barrel, it's one that has held food like olives, and it is reused because it's cheaper and better than buying a brand new one. Seriously, duh.

Just check all this out. Science, science, science. It's all over BBQ these days. All the wisdom of the elders has been tested, trialed, and the old myths like "salt gets into meat by osmosis" and "pink chicken is not safe" have been busted and thoroughly debunked. Just check out the following SCIENCE:

The Thermodynamics of Cooking
What You Need to Know About Wood, Smoke, and Combustion.
The Maillard Reaction And Caramelization
The Science of Wet Brines
Basic Meat Science
Why We Don't Need Grill Marks, and Why You Should Flip Often

And there are about a kajillion more articles like this on this one site. There are many, many more sites all across the internet. All of them are full of science. MIT isn't breaking new ground here, as much as they'd like to think so. Up to and including computer-controlled cookers that turn out perfect meat every time.

Comment: Re:Rule Engine? [Re:Security team] (Score 0) 515 515

When modern computers are on but idle, they consume a tiny amount of power. Remember the "Energy Star" campaign of the 90s? Yeah, we've had 20 years of advancements in that arena.

We all appreciate your yearning for a dark, cold, miserable life for the rest of us, though. Certainly, tax the fuck out of us some more, God knows we all have plenty of financial cushion for this kind of thing.

Comment: Re: Depends (Score -1) 515 515

Really? Do you actually know Microsoft's track record and what they did? They singlehandedly held back the progress of computers, year after year, with disgusting, unethical tactics. That kind of reputation doesn't wear off easily. Are you one of the pro-MS consultants paid to post on sites like these? If so, good move posting anonymously so it can't be tracked back to you. If not, why are you writing about a mega-billion dollar corporation that can defend itself quite well?

Comment: Re:diluting the market (Score 0) 249 249

The Atari was the best seller of an entire generation of consoles. It was enjoyed by millions and envied by millions more. Where'd you get the idea that people back then thought video games were dumb? This is backwards thinking, isn't it? Applying the standards of today to a time when different standards were in force.

Comment: Re:Infinity (Score 1) 1067 1067

I am not concerning myself with representations of mathematical values, except to show the parallels of why it works. IEEE 754 defines a positive and negative infinity, because it has a specific signed bit. Thus, it's easier to define a positive and negative infinity than to produce special code to handle "exceptions"... note also that IEEE 754 defines a positive and negative 0 separately. No, they really do.

My model is a theoretical one that hasn't reached mathematical consensus, and it likely never will. I just note that this is an argument for infinity being signless.

Comment: Re:unworkable (Score 1) 163 163

Can confirm this. I've been with Chinese people who went to have artifacts verified, and they've got the whole mass spectrometer (or whatever it is they use for solids) set up. There are tons of companies involved in verifying pricey things, because Chinese of all people are well aware the market is full of fakes.

Comment: I have a quote for this situation (Score 0) 152 152

"The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity."
-- Edsger Dijkstra

Who wants to bet the person who posted this has never heard of Dijkstra? He invented the shortest path algorithm, structured programming, and was the first person to label GOTO as harmful. Professionally immature, indeed. I'd go farther and say incompetent.

Comment: Re:Infinity (Score 1) 1067 1067

More importantly is what happens when you graph it: the limit of 1/x as x approaches zero is discontiguous. It's positive infinity when descending on the positive numbers, but negative infinity when ascending from the negatives. No one value can represent both!

Let's assume that the set of integers is Z_\inf. K? We can now define negative numbers as the 1's compliment of the number plus 1. 1 = 999...9998. then plus 1 = 999...9999. This plus 1 results in an infinite carry out, and the value 0. Awesome.

Now, let's look at 1/0, we see that from the right it's approaching \inf from the bottom, while we see that from the left, it's approaching \inf from the top. Now, at 0, obviously these two will be coincident, because we're working in Z_\inf, that value is the same value. Namely, -\inf = \inf. But that doesn't make sense, only 0 can be it's own negative!

But we've already known for a long time about Z_n where n is even, -(-128) in Z_256 is -128. -(-65536) in Z_2^16 = -65536. So, there's no trouble in making -\inf = \inf ...

Basically, 1/0 grows so fast that it manages to wrap around the entire infinite series of numbers. Which is exactly what it does...

Comment: Re:Infinity (Score 1) 1067 1067

That is simply false. There are an infinite number of algorithms that might contain the (sub)expression X/X for which zero is a valid value of X. To assume it's a programming error is sheer unmitigated stupidity that I might expect from a mathematician that has never written a real program in his life.

Dude... you perhaps haven't heard, but computers run entirely upon theoretical mathematics... I know, it's popular to say it's engineering, rather than mathematics, but it's mathematics. It's always been mathematics.

Comment: Re:extremely common fraud protection (Score -1, Troll) 130 130

Oh, you're the asshole who did that? I love how you totally ignored the fact that you made it not work for the large number of people who use VPNs. Somehow Google can keep a list of VPNs when it comes to spam, but that same list disappears suddenly when it's time to verify EMAIL LOGINS. And to make it all go away, I only have to give my phone number...which I don't care to reveal to Google as they are only going to abuse the information, either today or in the future. I appreciate the link to the support page that apparently only you knew.

I'd like to thank you for all the times I had my account disabled despite repeatedly clicking on "that was me". I'd like to especially endorse the "you will change your password, NOW!" screens that made me repeatedly change passwords, making me forget how to enter my password by memory and leading to that one time at the airport where I couldn't log in for the life of me. But hey, the information was just hanging out there, why not use it? amirite?

I've worked in anti-fraud before and one thing we always had was a "this user is not normal, do not disable the account for strange activity" flag. Too bad this blatantly obvious feature was not included (or publicized).

There are never any bugs you haven't found yet.