Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:No. (Score 5, Interesting) 368

by metamatic (#47868115) Attached to: Report: Microsoft To Buy Minecraft Studio For $2bn+

The news hit the developers in the Stockholm office very hard to the point that people were actually sobbing.

Yeah, they probably know how well being bought by Microsoft worked out for Sublogic. Or Oddworld Inhabitants. Or Bungie, even, forced to crank out endless formulaic sequels.

On the one hand, I can't blame notch, because if Microsoft offered me enough cash to retire, I'd sell out. But on the other hand, notch is already a millionaire, right? It's not like he needs the money.

Comment: Empty Calories (Score 1) 588

by metamatic (#47808895) Attached to: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

Since I started avoiding bread, potato (not sweet potato), rice, pasta and sugar, I've lost a lot of weight.

I did even less -- I cut the added sugar (specifically fructose) to the AHA recommended limits, but I allowed myself to eat all the other carbs I liked, and as much raw fresh fruit as I liked. Weight fell off me and has stayed off for 6 months now. My waistline dropped by 4". So far it seems I can basically eat as much as I like, including carbs, whenever I'm hungry, and stay at a healthy weight, so long as I keep my sugar intake low. So personally, I'm pretty much convinced that Dr Robert Lustig is right about fructose.

Of course, YMMV, I'm not a doctor, etc etc.

Comment: RFC 6238 or GTFO (Score 1) 47

by metamatic (#47318477) Attached to: Trivial Bypass of PayPal Two-Factor Authentication On Mobile Devices

This is part of why I don't bother to support half-assed roll-your-own 2FA systems like PayPal's, or stupid SMS-based schemes like Apple's. If you want to offer 2FA, offer me RFC 6238 so I can handle all my 2FA accounts in one convenient app and I know you didn't invent it yourself.

Mind you, I guess PayPal's programmers would have just implemented RFC 6238 client side and sent an extra parameter to say I'd got the code right.

Comment: Big Answer to a Nonproblem (Score 4, Insightful) 90

by mugnyte (#47184059) Attached to: Xanadu Software Released After 54 Years In the Making

The issue of tracking entities that quote your resource is not really the size of a problem that demands this much answer.
IIRC, the original design included a large number of other features that became nonsensical as modern conventions for information arrived:
- We do not require licensing or micropayment for quoting text or speech. The www follows free-speech by default, and tools must be built on top to restrict things. (Among many reasons why not: There is no permanent trust-able entity for enforcement)
- There is a vastly larger usage of linking than quote usage (links jump but also embed)
- Commercial licensing of text, images and video is still required but the infrastructure to enforce it has to constantly differentiate by usage and intent (satire, education), not mere presence or absence. (YouTube's big review process...)
- There is no permanent barrier to building a free side-channel for information that would otherwise be licensed. (P2P File Sharing, etc)

.

Comment: Re:Not surprising (Score 4, Informative) 140

by metamatic (#46528401) Attached to: Google Android Studio Vs. Eclipse: Which Fits Your Needs?

Yup, I switched from Eclipse to IntelliJ IDEA for my regular Java development as well as Android.

It's faster, leaner, more helpful, and has a far less cluttered UI.

I just wish it wasn't $199, I'd totally buy a personal license for $99. (There's zero chance of my employer buying it for me.)

Comment: Re:gweihir talks.... Kurzweil walks (Score 1) 254

by mugnyte (#46327825) Attached to: Ray Kurzweil Talks Google's Big Plans For Artificial Intelligence

^This is exactly what give me pause to blindly swoon over Kurzweil's predictions: His achievements in other fields were at times good, other not-so-much, but really none of it carries over to his AI research predictions: It's a huge problem, much larger than the individual - a composite form of pattern acquisition, storage, search and association that deals with modeling all our senses, modeling our cognition, self-awareness, ethics, history, etc. I see his aim to "understand a sentence" (for his definition of 'understand') as a piece of string connected to a huge sweater: Pull just a little, and one finds it's connected to the entire thing.

When he compounds the (predicted) discoveries of nanotechnology and some form of artificial intelligence into all sorts of fantasy, I'm not able to suspend disbelief. If we replaced sections of your brain with machine replacements in tiny portions over time, so that you never fully realized the difference, there would be, in his words, "no death". I disagree: there would be several dozen post-operation mini-deaths where we didn't feel or act "the same anymore" to our peers or to ourselves. This is not extending life forever, this is converting ourselves into the v1.0 buggy technology equivalent, killing ourselves in the process. Is the "self" just the biology? No, but we're not going to have the first (or any) version of this concept work flawlessly. I envision Kurzweil's future not as sentient machines, networked together in a single giant consciousness - but rather a swarm of flawed algorithms flooding, corrupting the networks, flopping around with fatal bugs - like a post-op brain patient machine-zombie population. "There's Grandma - she got v2.4 of the Kurzweil artificial brain - yeah the one with the 'TakePillsAllDay' bug. We're waiting for a bugfix."

Comment: Re:dev adv ftw (Score 1) 665

by mugnyte (#46223579) Attached to: South Carolina Education Committee Removes Evolution From Standards

So you disagree that genetic changes over a long time can result in an incompatible species from another divergent ancestral line, yet remain internally viable? Seems like a quite arbitrary limitation, given that mutations can result in non-viable populations in as short as one generation.

Comment: Re:Your point of view means nothing. (Score 1) 665

by mugnyte (#46223493) Attached to: South Carolina Education Committee Removes Evolution From Standards

Some meat for under the bridge: How would you expect science to investigate this?

If all the mechanisms for this evolutionary process exist on Earth, and have been observed in the short-term and have evidence over the long-term - why inject any other mechanism that arrives without any evidence? Also, why stop at any one fantasy? If you use the same evidence to construct one fantastical story, why not invent a story of any fancy that simply retrofits to the evidence we're finding? In summary, all claims that cannot differentiate themselves from boundless fantasy must all be grouped together: Creative perhaps, but not a model we can claim to be true. This is why certain models in science are possible, but not yet accepted universally - Scientists disagree if such a hypothesis is able to make a prediction - String Theory comes to mind. String Theory's mathematics can be shown to explain many of our forces and concepts in physics, but it hasn't been yet able to make a unique prediction that's be provably true to be due only from String Theory. The best thing going for it is that there isn't yet a viable competitor at that level of model.

Comment: thanks (Score 2) 60

by mugnyte (#46174977) Attached to: Slashdot BETA Discussion

Folks, OP here... thanks for discussing this. Express yourselves as you wish. I now understand some of the concerns. As a member since 98, I've seen several style revolts, and I'm hopeful this concentrated thread will get the guys in the home office some food for thought. Everyone here is a member so this isn't some fly-by BS thread.

16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone = 1 Rod Serling

Working...