Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 1) 172

There used to be a web page called "Your Eyes Suck at Blue". You might find it on the Wayback machine.

You can tell the luminance of each individual channel more precisely than you can perceive differences in mixed color. This is due to the difference between rod and cone cells. Your perception of the color gamut is, sorry, imprecise. I'm sure that you really can't discriminate 256 bits of blue in the presence of other, varying, colors.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 5, Insightful) 172

Rather than abuse every commenter who has not joined your specialty on Slashdot, please take the source and write about what you find.

Given that CPU and memory get less expensive over time, it is no surprise that algorithms work practically today that would not have when various standards groups started meeting. Ultimately, someone like you can state what the trade-offs are in clear English, and indeed whether they work at all, which is more productive than trading naah-naahs.

Comment Re:As it's been said, it is like bailing out a bat (Score 4, Interesting) 71

Actually, comments like yours are the kind of "media hype" they've been getting... It seems to consist of more unsupported criticism than anything else. And more to the point, all the criticisms have been soundly addressed, in a nice convenient list, LAST YEAR:

You'll find a lot of the crap you're spouting is already in there, and already debunked.

Comment Re:Problem with the solution? (Score 1) 193

Jesus. Sometimes "on the plane" means you're on a fucking plane, and can't do some things.

I can see where the confusion comes from... Packed-in together with a bunch of people, an extremely noisy environment. Hell, an airplane is a slight improvement over many office spaces. And if you couldn't be engrossed with work, you might have to think about how you've crammed-in a noisy metal tube like sardines, with no personal space, no leg-room, no comfort to speak of at all.

And don't call me "Jesus".

Comment Re:Problem with the solution? (Score 1) 193

VNC is an essential part of my job, in that I cannot run the sims on a puny IT issued laptop, and need my desktop

VNC sucks. You'd get vastly better performance out of ANY OTHER remote display protocol... Try NX, Citrix, or RDP if you must, but get rid of VNC if at all possible.

VNC is useful on KVMs and other dumb devices that don't have any idea what they're going to display, but locally, on a computer, it makes no sense unless nothing better is available.

Submission + - Forget Skynet, Your Fridge Might Turn Against You

kraksmoka writes: In a recent cyber-security report in eWeek, the experts at NexusGuard say that a DDoS attack by the "Internet of Things", those every day items like a smart refrigerator, a Nest thermostat or your smart toilet might become compromised and used in a Distributed DOS attack to gain access to critical systems.

Comment Re:No, not economics at all (Score 1) 185

I don't have to apologize for national fiat currency, it's silly too, and I don't keep my assets in cash. My problem with Bitcoin is that it is even less credible than "the faith and credit of the United States government", which has been the justification of the Dollar since it was allowed to float. It seems to be nothing but "wish and it will come true".

Comment Re:Nonsense (Score 1) 390

the biggest change they can cite is that in some areas the average water consumption per person went from 170 gallons to 150 gallons... and that's only a in a couple places


"Two water distributors in San Francisco and one in East Los Angeles recorded the lowest average totals, 46, 46 and 48, respectively. In Santa Cruz, which has some of the toughest conservation measures in the state, residents used an average of 49 gallons per person a day." "on average, Southern California residents used 119 gallons per person a day".

"The population of the U.S. has grown by more than 81 million people since 1975, but total water use has declined. As a result, our per-person water use is almost 30% lower than it was 30 years ago"

California's "TOTAL WATER USE has been DECLINING since 1980"

"Water used for urban and agricultural purposes has generally remained stable, and has even declined at times, even though population has increased."

I won't be responding to you again in this thread.

Well that is a reasonable response when you've been making stupid statements that you can't possibly support. I would have suggested keeping your mouth shut after my first reply demonstrated how baseless and ignorant your statements were.

Comment Re:Nonsense (Score 1) 390

we see that the Cali Reservoir capacity increased by 218 Percent since 1960. The population of the state however increased by about 250 percent in that same time frame.

Glad to see you've conceded the point. Of course I realize you didn't mean to do so, but the trivial shortfall easily disappears into efficiency improvements (low-flow toilets, showers, etc.) that have greatly reduced per-capita water-usage over the same time-frame. So I can draw no other conclusion than your complete agreement that the water sources are more than adequate.

And that's just the Reservoirs. I cited aqueducts as well.

No, you didn't. In fact you never even used the word aqueduct once in ANY of your previous posts in this thread.

But to the point, aqueducts are only useful if you have a huge supply of water somewhere, and just need to move it around. California doesn't. The whole state is in drought, so extra aqueducts would make no difference. And other states that have extra supply (like Oregon) haven't been willing to export theirs. Additionally, the existing aqueducts haven't exceeded their capacity at all... They aren't running dry before reaching the end of the line, or anything like that, and nobody is claiming we've all be in great shape if only they could move more water across the state. There is no particular need for more of them.

Its what I do when /. shits the bed.

I'm with /.'s lameness filter on this one. The public should be spared that horrendous wreck of worthless copy-pasta.

Comment Re:Are they going to fine airlines for doing the s (Score 1) 188

No, the small-aircraft owners aren't at risk of messing up their avionics. They are, however, consciously messing up the cellular network for everyone else. You see, you are supposed to be in range of just a few cells when you use your phone, so that we get frequency reuse between cells. If you are at altitude, you are in line-of-sight communications with all of the cells out to the visible horizon on all sides. And the frequencies you are using are probably locked out from reuse over that entire vast area. It would not take very many phones at altitude to disrupt the entire system.

Comment No, not economics at all (Score 4, Insightful) 185

People who received a play-money system from a mysterious unknown person and actually convinced themselves that it has value are now facing a schism over the money market failing to grow without bounds. Unless, that is, the software is modified in a way that might, over time, disincent people from playing the game.

I can't be the only one who is thinking that the only problem is that these folks believe bitcoins have value.

Hell, I thought that the fiat currency of nations was a bad deal. This is an order of magnitude worse.

The nicest thing about the Alto is that it doesn't run faster at night.