Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Thanks Trump! (Score 5, Interesting) 153

Silly valley will chip in too:

The USPO has stated they want this for all the things, this includes the things made by silly valley. The moguls of silly valley will not like that. It does not matter that Ford and John Deer are not part of silly valley culture, their interests will coincide.

Expect the likes of Google, amazon, Microsoft, etc to be against this, because many of the things they do to "secure" their products (Xbox, home, Alexa, etc) introduce technological locks to prevent modifications, which also precludes service and repair. Things like the DVD firmware being tied to a specific xbox, etc. This move would shake things up in that kind of model. Microsoft and pals would have to start relying more on contract law instead of copyright law, and could not abuse the DMCA the way they gave grown accustomed to.

The logical next step is to allow jail breaking of repaired devices that the OEM refuses to provide service for, so that alternative services can be provided, which would undermine the position of power enjoyed by abusing contract law--, if you don't agree to their terms and conditions, you can use an alternative service provider. Naturally, that is very undesirable to Apple, Microsoft, and pals.

It does not take a genius to see how silly valley will react with horror to this announcement, and seek seemingly unlikely alliances to squash it.

But you were too busy trying to paint everything with Ds and Rs, now weren't you? Money does not really care about those things. It has no allegiance to anything but itself. Remember that.

Comment Wrong market (Score 1) 219

They are using these hand-held engravers in the wrong market.

The obvious best use is in cosmetic body modification. This, combined with normal tattooing, would be a powerful new addition to the body mod scene I think.

There is already scarification, which is done with hot brands or razor blades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

This would be much quicker, and could do much more intricate designs on skin. Combined with traditional inking it could lead to very nice tattoos indeed.

Seriously- branding fruit? Wrong market. Humans WANT to be branded. Take their money.

Comment Re:Not hard to find volunteers (Score 1) 229

Some of the perchlorates will release oxygen dimers after simple heating. The resulting gas wont be immediately breathable though. It will likely release other, toxic gasses that will need to be captured and resequestered (like chlorine, etc.)

You need a reducing agent to turn all that iron oxide into something useful.

In terms of processing CO2 into breathable air, and using it in general...

About 9 years ago, a story ran here on slashdot.
https://science.slashdot.org/s...

One liter of this substance can store 89 liters of CO2, and it is very selective, and very durable (It can be reprocessed with heat many times). This would be much cheaper to use than pumps which have moving parts, have a propensity to get clogged with dust, etc. This you just put in a porous bag and hang up outside for a few days, then take it back in and process it.

Combine that with advances in electrochemical reformation of alcohols from compressed CO2 and water, and a catalyst, (https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/16/10/18/194231/co2-to-ethanol-in-one-step-with-cheap-catalyst) and you get a useful feedstock for many industrial purposes, including as a feedstock for several plastics, like polyethylene.

For breathable oxygen, it seems that blasting the CO2 with the right kind of laser light produces free O2 molecules.
https://motherboard.vice.com/e...

In these reactions, the only consumables are CO2, and electrical energy.

It will be the energy costs that are the roadblock.

Comment Re:It's not a thing (Score 1) 418

Here, as a contrived example--

Say my decoder stores the full value of all of the first 100,000 prime numbers. Prime numbers have a lot of entropy-- they are complex numbers that cannot be broken down easily, so this is perfect for the example. My decoder is fucking huge.

My input file contains a comma delimited list of simple integers. The integers in the file represent an index in the array stored in the decoder.

I feed it a potentially very small integer, the decoder spits back a large prime number. The decoder does not compute the prime number, it is already computed, and stored in the really big array.

We can do something similar with a data chunk. We use some mechanism to index a solution space, then hard store those index values inside the decoder. The number we actually want back is some distance between the two values stored in the decoder's array. We feed the decoder the two indexes (which will be small), and the percentage between the two. The decoder looks up the indexes, then does the dirty work. It then returns the number you wanted.

The decoder has static data. Its indexes never change. It is bloatedly huge, but it has to be. The file you share is very teeny. You need both derive the actual data you want.

Comment Re:It's not a thing (Score 1) 418

I am aware of entropy-- I have fought with it before. Highly complex numbers have very high entropy, which is the problem.

The deal is, we are not really encoding the whole number this way, just it's beginning point on the line. We dont even really need to state how long the file is in many cases, as the actual file data itself will ALSO contain that. (Say for instance, with RIFF container formatted AVI.) We just need enough bytes to derive the header, the header itself then tells the decoder how many more bytes to read. That is complexity "for free."

The issue with the entropy is that the definition data for it (data to encode position on the line) is equal to or greater than the data itself.

EG, the number 10 is always 10 away from 0.

The deal, is that this assumes the full infinite number line is the search space for the decoder. It is not in this case. The search space is the distance between the two indexes. The distance between 1234578900 and 12345678901, is 1.

You offset a good deal of entropy into the DECODER, which is WHY the decoder is so flipping huge.

You cannot dispose of the entropy, you DO have to keep it in order to get the number again. You just keep an optimized sample of entropy stored in the decoder, and only keep the necessary amounts of it in the sample to be decoded.

Comment Re:It's not a thing (Score 3, Interesting) 418

For any given number of any given complexity, there are adjacent numbers that have significantly lower complexity.

I have toyed with the idea of using "indexing" between two points on a number line, where the two points are very low complexity, but the number you want is somewhere between-- With a high precision percentage of the now clearly defined space between the points on the line, we can skip over and start playback of the number we want, if we also state how many digits this number is.

Say, the number we want is between 10^23 and ((10^23)+(10^10)). Those are both impossibly huge numbers, but they can be defined very easily because they are not complex. We will then say that the number we want is found 10% of the distance between those two numbers, and that it is 10^6 digits long.

Just using some fun math with the natural logarithm, we can produce that number, from those modest ingredients.

Video files are just very very large numbers. They could be found on the infinite number line in exactly the same way.

A complex encoder that has broken the file to be searched into a series of smaller (and thus easier to compute/derive) numbers that get concatenated together, and has a working knowledge of number space for numbers of those data block sizes, could reduce hundreds of megabytes into a few kb of metadata. The decoder would have to compute very large numbers (or have very large numbers already stored statically, and just crawls along...) to initialize the playback, but it could easily do so using nothing but lots of RAM and brute force CPU.

I have considered looking into creating a compression system of this type myself, which is why I find it kinda spooky that it would need a huge decoder.. because my theoretical system would need a huge decoder too.

Comment Re:Hmm... (Score 1) 608

And you are also being unrealistic in your expectations.

Not reacting to novelty is not something humans in general are good at. Try to stop people from gawking at a horrible car crash or a train wreck some time.

Rather than try to load my suggestion with a bunch of "You're clearly a closeted misogynist!" bullshit, look at it this way:

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, female authors were often maligned, similarly to female developers today. As a result, many famous female authors used male pen-names for publishing. At the time, they were a major minority, but the ability to still get published and be successful by removing gender biases, even if non-ideal, enabled more women to enter literature as a career, and now women authors are no longer rare-- women publish under their own names, and have little to no issue.

I am suggesting a similar natural progression here. You want instant gratification. It does not usually happen. I suggest being a bit more realistic, and finding historically workable solutions to the problem, which is what I offered.

Instead, I get basted in a thick sauce of vitriol. Thanks for that.

Comment Re:Hmm... (Score 1) 608

You are confused AC.

The topic specifically says "Devs", as in, "Software Developers".

The single defining characteristic thereof, is somebody who writes software. The primary feature of your value is how well you understand, and can write quality code.

Engineering most certainly DOES involve much more than just code, but we are not talking about engineering. Engineers, while notoriously introverted, often work in personal "face to face" environments. Software developers often do not. They often interact exclusively through IRC, email mailing lists, and instant messages. The quality of their code is what they show to each other, along with their knowledge base. Having good standing in both of those is what makes you a good programmer.

Comment Hmm... (Score 4, Insightful) 608

This may seem a bit sexist, but still...

Nobody on the internet knows you have a penis. Nobody knows you have a vagina. You only reveal that when you blab about it.

Pretty much all FOSS work is done in such impersonal settings, over the internet. Unless the developer uses an alias that is super female sounding, like "KittenLove_xoxo" or something, there is nothing to suggest that she does not have a penis. If she can roll with that, and can work in a male dominated environment, there is nothing to prevent her from being just as successful in the group as any other member, assuming her code quality is good.

Nobody sees your tits through IRC, Email, or the like. You might get outed by teamspeak or something, but impersonal digital communications that are the norm for programmer communication? Not so much.

Even if you need to use a real name when doing development work, you dont need to say your name is "Tiffany McCoder", you can use "T. McCoder" instead. Nobody knows if that is "Tim McCoder", or "Tyrone McCoder" or "Tristan McCoder".... or any other name starting with T. There is no reason to out yourself and get the flood of "OMG! A WOMAN! UNPOSSIBLE!" that is sure to happen.

Why is it better not to out yourself? Is it because I think you should just buck it up and accept abuse? NO-- it is because I think you should not set yourself up for abuse. If you happen to be a very rare magical unicorn, outing yourself in front of a bunch of naturalists is a good way to get collected as a type specimen. (note, that means you get killed, and collected for science. Probably something you dont want.) Similar things will happen if you out yourself as a woman in a very male dominated profession, because you are so damned rare. Now, if more women did this, and did it stealthfully, and ended up becoming a more normal demographic, the "Magical unicorn! WOW! AMAZING!!" thing would not happen, and it would be safe to say, "Yes, I am a female developer."

That is to say, if magical unicorns were as common as grasshoppers or normal horses, scientists would not really be all that excited about them, and showing off your magical rainbow unicorn farts in public would not be an issue. Nobody would care, nobody would notice, because rainbow unicorn farts would be everywhere. It is only when magical unicorns are rare that the "OMG! ITS REAL!!" phenomenon happens.

Female developers are rare. Outing yourself as one will cause you only misfortune in this environment. It has nothing to do with sexism. It has everything to do with novelty and rarity. Avoid the temptation to out yourself. Just be another programmer. Make it or break it on the quality of your code. That's all you need to do.

Slashdot Top Deals

Logic is a pretty flower that smells bad.

Working...