Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Hmm... (Score 1) 34

I'd honestly be a lot more optimistic/sympathetic to this sort of research(psychology and psychiatry certainly need all the help they can get at actually being useful, and minimally-invasive neuron-scale intervention is a likely avenue of research, both for better data gathering and for possible treatment); if we hadn't just learned about the whole "Lets get some hack psychologists to design our torture program; and then subvert more or less all the relevant parts of the American Psychological Association, including its ethics director, just for giggles, in order to provide an appearance of legality!" program.

I'm not one to be scared by the 'ooh, it looks sci-fi and icky; it must be evil!' school of medical ethics. We are creatures made of meat, subject to a wide variety of more and less ghastly medical problems; and there is no use pretending that some of the solutions are not going to involve ugly, meaty, hacking. It's just that the DoD would need to clean a lot of house(an exercise that they haven't even shown much interest in pretending to undertake), before I'd be capable of pretending that having them seeking to do it is anything but really creepy.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 177

The only one "desperately begging for attention" here is you. It's the only rational explanation for your lengthy rantings. I'm hardly looking for attention... in fact I'd be very happy if you just went the hell away.

And your links to "lecturing scientists" are rather amusing... including the one where after all you had done was try to attack the messenger, I called you out on it.

The discussion here was not about the hotspot, and you didn't "debunk". You quoted one person's opinion.

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

I didn't lecture you about what you think. I asked you a question. Which you did not answer.

And you're the one here spouting about time machines, not me. I don't know what your schedule is, nor do I care. You didn't give me (or anyone) any actual evidence that it wasn't you. You just made the claim. I still find it strange how you project your own imaginings on others. It's an interesting (if unsociable) habit.

Now, if you wanted FINALLY get to the actual subject that was under discussion, then by all means: show me that John Cook is not in fact a cartoonist. Or show us that...

Abstracts were randomly distributed via a web-based system to raters with only the title and abstract visible. All other information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden. Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters.

... as claimed in the paper was true. Show us that the #3 author did not write this in their online forum:

"We have already gone down the path of trying to reach a consensus through the discussions of particular cases. From the start we would never be able to claim that ratings were done by independent, unbiased, or random people anyhow."

Or that Jose Duarte's summation is false:

There appears to be no question that they knew, well before submitting the paper, that they had not implemented independent ratings, since as she mentioned, they were discussing particular papers in the forums the whole time. Yet, they still reported in their article that they used independent raters. What is this?

Those are the only relevant issues discussed in my comments, and you haven't addressed one of them. Yes, you did lose the argument. So what did you do as a result? Admit you were wrong? Apologize? NO, you came here and wrote a page of whines like a child, trying to make me look bad again.


And finally, stop sock-puppeting as Anonymous Coward. It makes even you look bad.

Comment Re:Well if this is true (Score 1) 99

The problem with 'regulations' is that it suggests that the activity is fundamentally OK; just needs a few little safeguards to prevent specific abuses.

In this case, they really need to just be declared hostis humani generis, and their extirpation made the duty of any person or nation that has the occasion to undertake it. Proposals involving salting the earth, skull pyramids, and flaying are also to be considered.

Comment Re:Uh, D-Wave produces Quantum Computers already? (Score 1) 92

D-Wave's claimed quantum computers depend very much on what you call a quantum computer. D-Waves machines use a form of quantum annealing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing but they are not a universal quantum computer in the traditional sense, and even for quantum annealing they are very limited in what they can do and it isn't even clear that the problems that the D-Wave machine can do are any problems where we should expect any actual speedup from a quantum computer, and certainly the D-Wave machines have no capability for doing many of the problems we do want to use quantum computers for like factoring large integers.

Submission + - Data Transfer Pact Between U.S. and Europe Is Ruled Invalid

Sique writes: Europe’s highest court ruled on Tuesday that a widely used international agreement for moving people’s digital data between the European Union and the United States was invalid.

The decision, by the European Court of Justice, throws into doubt how global technology giants like Facebook and Google can collect, manage and analyze online information from their millions of users in the 28-member bloc. The court decreed that the data-transfer agreement was invalid as of Tuesday’s ruling.

Comment Re:The Message (Score 1) 139

It seems that animals living their whole life within the immediate environment of Chernobyl fare much better than for instance migratory birds. While there seem to be no increased gene defects in the local wolfpacks, with migratory birds raising their young in the Chernobyl area, we see heightened gene defects.

So the jury is still out there. Maybe living from craddle to grave in Chernobyl will be ok, but appearently living abroad and returning once in a while will not.

Comment Re:Hubris and Self-Interest (Score 1) 281

If you actually have a problem that decomposes nicely into lots of little, neatly contained, problems it might work really well. It's just that if you have that, you are among the blessed and probably don't need any fancy consultants in order to do just fine. You'd need somebody who is actively capable of pulling defeat from the jaws of victory to screw it up.

The sticking point is whether or not snake oil can dissolve seemingly insoluble problems into lots of little, neatly contained, problems.

Comment Re:Not a hard and fast rule... (Score 3, Interesting) 281

I don't know how broadly it can be applied(if it in fact works as well as they claim at all); but it would appear that the whole point of these 'microservices' is to produce smaller 'projects' so that you have more room to scale before complexity eats you alive. It's not so much a disproof of the 'mythical man-month'; but an adaptation to cope with it.

Getting purely linear scaling without some sort of zero-latency hive mind is unlikely to be possible; but it seems fairly obvious that the amount of overhead you incur by adding 20 extra people to a five man project is going to be rather higher than adding a second person to a one man project(though the jump between 1 person and 2 people might actually be pretty big, if helpful in terms of producing documentation that somebody other than the 1 person understands). If you can break your projects down into smaller pieces, with complexity better contained, and well defined interaction between the pieces, you have teams small enough that you might actually be able to make them faster by making them somewhat larger.

If your project is already a screaming heap of interlocking complexity, there simply isn't as much work that can be done in parallel. Aside from people stepping on each other's toes, there will just be a lot of "Part X can't be done until the guy doing Part Y finishes".

Not so terribly different(if likely to be even less predictable because humans are involved) than deciding how a problem will scale if you throw more computers at it. If your problem is actually a large number of mostly unrelated problems, it'll scale nearly perfectly. If your problem consists of lots of somewhat interconnected problems it will scale; but demands on interconnect will become increasingly expensive. If it's a purely serial problem, and each step depends on the prior step, it may not scale at all.

Comment Re:Well, yeah (Score 3, Insightful) 918

Is Linux successful? Debatable. It has success in limited uses, but has never grown beyond these uses. It is a feature, not a product. Linus accomplished a lot, but what groundbreaking thing has he done in the last 20 years?

None of which has much to do with the kernel. I doubt there's a single feature you can point to and say "because the kernel is missing/mis-implemented this, people will not adopt linux". The lack of adoption of linux in userspace, if it is due to any technical reason at all, is to do with problems in the userspace tools.

A rock store eventually closed down; they were taking too much for granite.