Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:How does this compare to radio? (Score 1) 304

by turbidostato (#49112467) Attached to: Pandora Pays Artists $0.001 Per Stream, Thinks This Is "Very Fair"

"It's criminal what these streaming services are trying to pay though."

How is it?

First, as you say, they "are trying to pay", let's see then, what happens.

Then, if they end up paying what they are trying to pay, how couldn't it be anything but "fair market rates"? it is not as if they could have a lock on the streaming makert. Heck, you could even stream your songs out of your home conection if you feel so decieved by current choices.

Comment: Re:Great if optimizing the wrong thing is your thi (Score 1) 171

by turbidostato (#49081137) Attached to: HTTP/2 Finalized

"The main problem isn't the size of the stuff that gets loaded [...] the root cause of all this is the sheer amount of unnecessary stuff on pages these days"

So the main problem *is* in fact the size of that stuff, isn't it?

Oh! by the way, not everybody's connection is like yours, specially over mobile networks.

Comment: Re:How is this a good thing? (Score 1) 115

"what would happen if every soldier's gun had a chip that required "command approval" before any member of a squad could start firing? Sure, individual soldiers kill the wrong people, and for the wrong reasons, all the time. Hopefully, though, most of the time it is for the right reasons. "

What would happen if every computerized autonomous weapon system had a chip that required "command approval" before firing?

There's no such a chip on soldiers' weapons for a twofold reason:
* There's not enough man/computer power to deal with the vast amount of information process required.
* In case of a delay or misundernstandment the good guys die.

That's not the case here: the analysis power is there and nothing of value is lost in case of a minor delay. I don't want the "hopefully, though, most of the time it is for the right reasons" here: it is not only a too low ethical ground but it's not needed either.

Comment: Re:Next step destruction of public libraries (Score 1) 154

by turbidostato (#49054315) Attached to: Trans-Pacific Partnership Enables Harsh Penalties For Filesharing

"Then the publishing corporations should just sue all the libraries in the world for lost profits from books not being sold."

Well, they do.

Don't know in USA but in Europe there *is* a canon to be paid by libraries because of the "lost sales" which were created by the lobbying pressure of the publishing corporations and at least Spain had to pay a fine because not wanting to abide.

Comment: Re:Science's Biggest Failure: Everything About Die (Score 1) 958

by turbidostato (#49031401) Attached to: Science's Biggest Failure: Everything About Diet and Fitness

"I would love to see some citations that show your varied meal plan would be 100% nutritionally complete."

You don't need citations for the completly obvious: most people by "just eating", I mean, common sense, nothing fancy supervised by a nutrionist, lack any known avitaminosis illnesses, which proves the point.

You need the "help" of things like alcoholism, food deprivation or isolated environments (i.e. old school sailors) -or, nowadys, obviously unhealthy food decisions, to develop any kind of avitaminosis.

Given 28 main dishes a week (7 days, two main meals, two dishes -a first and a second, a meal, plus 14 desserts), say, 12 mainly of vegetables, 8 of pasta/carbohidrates-related, 5 of fish, 3 of meat, plus fresh fruit as dessert; all most varied in-season products you can easily find in the market. Add some bread, milk and eggs from time to time, water at leisure and forget about pre-cooked/frozen solutions.

Now, follow the above and the old adage: leave the table almost as if you were to start dinning again and I guarantee not only a nutritionally complete but also fully healthy diet.

Comment: Science's Biggest Failure: Everything About Diet (Score 0) 958

by turbidostato (#48965599) Attached to: Science's Biggest Failure: Everything About Diet and Fitness


Science's Biggest Failure: marketing, communication and lobbying.

While it's right that we learned a lot about diet in the last decades, all the "problems" cited here are pushed by marketing and food corporations, not science:

"Eating lots of peanuts, avocados, and cheese, for example, probably decreases your appetite and keeps you thin."

It was bullshit and it is bullshit. Eating a lot of basically anyhting gets you fat. My guest: USA population. Of course, snack makers will say otherwise.

"I used to think vitamins had been thoroughly studied for their health trade-offs. They haven't. The reason you take one multivitamin pill a day is marketing, not science. "

Bullshit the former, of course right the later. It has never been the standard that a healthy person needs any kind of vitamin suplement aside of what comes with a varied and healthy diet. Big pharma will say otherwise, of course.

"I used to think the U.S. food pyramid was good science. In the past it was not, and I assume it is not now."

Learn a bit of US food pyramid and the impact of lobbies on its redaction. Oh, and it's not so much that older food pyriamids were utterly wrong (basically relative importance of carbs versus veggies have changed roles), but the way to get your dose (too much prefab) and the dose itself (USA standard portions are about double than needed -remember Paracelsus: ...It is only the dose which makes a thing poison.") Again, marketing and communication.

"I used to think drinking one glass of alcohol a day is good for health, but now I think that idea is probably just a correlation found in studies."

Here you have a point but, again, science has gone as far as saying something on the lines of "a glass of wine" (not just alcohol, mind you, never heard that a glass of whisky a day was healthy at all) was probably liminary benefitial, current trend says there's probably not a healthy minimum for alcohol, so a glass of wine a day goes from "minimally benefitial" to "minimally harmful", not a great issue. Of course, wine and beer producers want to make a lot more noise than that.

"the direct problem of science is that it has been collectively steering an entire generation toward obesity, diabetes, and coronary problems."

Bullshit. That's a direct problem of the food industry lobbying and marketing left and right.

Comment: Re:Why use a cable? (Score 1) 248

by turbidostato (#48920687) Attached to: Engineers Develop 'Ultrarope' For World's Highest Elevator

"It's mostly the counterweight issue, which you can resolve by using electric motors in the cars and large battery banks."

Cuonterweight is there to avoid the need of hugh power-hungry engines, since they only need to lift the load. Take out the counterweight and you will need to lift the whole load requiring a much bigger engine. Put the engine on the car and then you'll need an even biigger engine (much bigger) to lift its own weight too.

Comment: Re:I won't notice (Score 2) 332

by turbidostato (#48895771) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

"I disagree. I've watched a Blu Ray played on a 50" HDTV at 1920x1080 resolution, and next to it a 50" 4K (3880xwhatever) television was playing some UHD content. The difference in definition was very easy to see from even ten feet away."

On a mall, I bet.

Maybe you are an expert and I'm wrong, but you probably were fooled to think the UHD was better by gaming the controls of both screens.

Comment: Re:Hello insurance fraud (Score 1) 199

"the insurer absolutely will think you committed fraud"

Absolutly yes, of course. Heck! they probably default to think there's a fraud even if lacking any evidence.

A very different thing is for them to *demonstrate* there's a fraud or, at least, being a civil case, that it heavily smells like fraud.

"The police will then report that the skid marks indicate that the car must have been travelling at at least 50mph, not the 20mph indicated by the dongle."

And the insured will claim that his coverage is bound to the dongle as per the contract since his anual bill is also bound to it. So, on one hand, the insured will claim the real-time measures from the dongle are correct and, on the other, that even if they are wrong, his coverage and liabilities are bound to the dongle as per contract.

Real Users never know what they want, but they always know when your program doesn't deliver it.