Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Submission + - Major brain pathway rediscovered after century-old confusion, controversy (

vinces99 writes: A couple of years ago a scientist looking at dozens of MRI scans of human brains noticed something surprising: A large fiber pathway that seemed to be part of the network of connections that process visual information that wasn't mentioned in any modern-day anatomy textbooks. “It was this massive bundle of fibers, visible in every brain I examined,” said Jason Yeatman, a research scientist at the University of Washington’s Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences. “... As far as I could tell, it was absent from the literature and from all major neuroanatomy textbooks.”

With colleagues at Stanford University, Yeatman started some detective work to figure out the identity of that mysterious fiber bundle. The researchers found an early 20th century atlas that depicted the structure, now known as the vertical occipital fasciculus. But the last time that atlas had been checked out was 1912, meaning the researchers were the first to view the images in the last century. They describes the history and controversy of the elusive pathway in a paper published Nov. 17 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Comment Re:They're gross looking (Score 2) 655

I went through the same thing and ended up looking at Ensure (or similar type) meal replacement shakes as a wife rightly pointed out that no matter how easy it made lunches, it would just make everyone who looked in the office fridge and found out they were mine think I was dying of cancer.


Submission + - IQ 'a myth,' study says (

An anonymous reader writes: The idea that intelligence can be measured by a single number — your IQ — is wrong, according to a recent study led by researchers at the University of Western Ontario. The study, published in the journal Neuron on Wednesday, involved 100,000 participants around the world taking 12 cognitive tests, with a smaller sample of the group undergoing simultaneous brain-scan testing.

Submission + - Most Kickstarter Projects Fail to Deliver on Time 1

adeelarshad82 writes: A recently conducted analysis found that out of the top 50 most-funded Kickstarter projects, a whopping 84 percent missed their target delivery dates. As it turns out, only eight of them hit their deadline. Sixteen hadn't even shipped yet, while the remaining 26 projects left the warehouse months late.

Submission + - Full-Tilt Poker Is A Real Ponzi Scheme (

blair1q writes: Popular (and heavily advertised) poker website Full-Tilt Poker was sued today by the US Government, following an investigation that revealed it to be a massive Ponzi Scheme. The principals in the company set up a complicated system to direct funds from subscribers' poker accounts into their own bank accounts. This was in contravention of their own claim that users' money was untouched. Players' accounts amounted to $390 million, but the company only has $60 million in the bank, having over time distributed $440 million to its own directors and executives.

Comment Commenting too late to matter... (Score 1) 452

As long as everyone realizes: the OtherOS functionality was removed by a firmware update. If you didn't update your firmware, it didn't change much for you. Yes, you no longer get to play your PS3 games online, but think of it as Sony suddenly implementing a $3 million dollar/day fee for their online gaming network.
You can't afford it, it's probably a crappy business decision, but they're allowed to do what they want even if it bankrupts the company.
Likely the OtherOS removal was because it _would_ have cost them a lot of money to make sure security through random homebrew software existed - something that's basically impossible.
This is the arrogant slashdot mindset, valuing technical skills over the ability to work within a society that has evolved over thousands of years. You can sit in your basement, but until you build your open source ps3 with free games, respect the money and time Sony put into this product. If you think they "deserve" to be punished, hope the next hacker that is intelligent enough to do so also has the social wherewithal to go online, demonstrate the exploit and go about changing things the right way. Whether it's a third-party verification, independent movie or the court system, get the word out and realize the US has no problem smacking down a corporation if the person who thinks the company's wrong can demonstrate it in an intelligent way.

Comment Charges (Score 1) 199

Actually, the feature that shows up with the Google Chat stuff on the left side of my Gmail includes a link "Call Phone", that lets you call any number in Canada or the States. It works great for me _and_ it's completely free for 2011.

Now all slashdotters go make a fake gmail address, login through a proxy server and start harassing your ex-boss/annoying coworker/the cute girl who turned you down for a date. Looks very difficult to trace.

Comment This is the best thing ever! (Score 1) 240

Obviously some people here are having some problems understanding how fake reviews on a product can be a bad thing.

Well, here's a simple explanation: The first thing to consider is the number of sentences in the review which can easily create a new way of making the possibility of the review real. There is many ways that the review can be re-rated with absolutely no way that a review can be made more complex. If you're going to spend time reading a review, it's important to make sure that you are on the line of the _best_ possible reviewer, and there is no reason that the reviewers would be rating products with the number of stars that make a rating.

ALWAYS remember that looking for the proper relevance for the product is a required step in determining if there is resonance with the reviews posted and the actual quality of the reviewer. Pay attention to the number of reviews that do not result in a reviewer having the amount of stars needed to produce the product as needed. There is an inherent danger in the reviewer making reviews that are following the actual methodology of reviewing a product that only conforms to the regulated Amazon policies on posting reviews. The reviews that are making fun of products that are obviously a definite cause of people not believing in the sheer obliviousness some people have, who also do not pay any attention to the star-rating that is attached to reviews. Reading a review that only serves to create a more environmentally-friendly to the whole concept of "rating a product" is the ultimate use of these reviews. The false elements that don't add information about a product just create a method of rating a product with no possible recourse for the person who is determining the ability of the reviewer to pay attention or be humorous AT THE SAME TIME. This is the main reason that there should be stricter monitoring of comments that create an environment of "ratability" around certain items that only serve to confuse and obscure the rating that is the product, verifying that the product makes a legitimate use of rating systems.

Amazon relies on these reviewers to create long blocks of text that can be classified as reviews, with the people who post them eventually being classified as reviewers. The problem with this system is the reviewer ends up being the person who is not only paying for the product, but paying the most attention to the other reviews that are posted. With the meta-moderation, some reviews can be re-reviewed and posted as a review within a review, this is known as meta-moderating and is currently in use on many sites that rely on the posts of anonymous netizens to create a reasonable environment that allows others to read the feedback of the other reviews and products. You'll notice I included products in that list, because it is important that the product is considered when trying to determine the veracity of the posting. Only without the ratings can a real use of time be used, otherwise there will be a waste of time that accompanies the use of the problems that occur when ratings are used to differentiate between the useful products and useless product ratings.

There is no real reason why anyone should be posting a rating for the product that does not correlate with the rating it received. If we allow ratings to determine which product is ultimately purchased or researched by a person on the internet, there will never be a useful basis for the product. Why would anyone want the product to correlate with the number of stars that are received in a large number of products? Ratings are the key to this and it is necessary to ensure that the products that are being rated ARE BEING RATED.

Obviously this is something people here just don't get.

Comment Radio Shack = The Source = garbage (Score 1) 629

Radio Shack stores were all renamed "The Source [by Circuit City]" here in Canada after InterTan was bought by Circuit City a couple of years ago. I think they've recently all been bought by Bell to be set up to compete with the mall stores that every other cell provider has.
You'll get over the name change. The "Radio Shack" brand never had extremely positive connotations (as far as I know), so they're not losing much. Name changes, brand identity...they're all junky stores staffed by uninformed people in low-cost malls no matter what you call them.

Slashdot Top Deals

When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing," it's the money. -- Kim Hubbard