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


Forgot your password?

Comment Specificity (Score 1) 320

Not all bacteria are harmful. This phage therapy needs to not wipe out the symbiotes that make it possible for us to stay alive.

Actually it's going the other way around :

- Antibiotics are rather indiscriminate and can kill large swaths of bacterial population, including commensal flora (= "the bacteria which normally live here", i.e.: non-dangerous).
That's one of the reasons (the non-ecological/resistance one) why doctors try to avoid over-prescribing. (Just ask any girl who got yeast infection - e.g.: candida - because her flora got disturbed by a wide-spectum antibiotics)
That's also a reason why antibiotics can be prescribed with micro-flora supplements (the antibiotics will kill the commensal flora in addition to the bacteria causing the disease you're trying to cure, so you need to import new microorganisms to compensate - usually Saccharomyces, a type of benign yeast)
(Disclaimer: IAAD)

- Phage are the bacteria equivalent of viruses. They target *specific* surface receptors. It's like viruses and eukaryote (you might catch flu from a swine because surface cell receptors are close enough for a virus targeting one to be able to bind the other - ie. we're closely enough related. You'll probably never catch a virus usually affecting plants.)
A phage might be able to recognize and bind a few related bacteria, but will never affect other completely different prokaryotes).

Comment Acceleration (Score 1) 479

Lol when I'm driving my 500 hp vehicle I st{e}p on the gas at every light.

Yeah, once the traffic light turns back to green, you push as far as possible on the accelerator to have the car jump forward as fast as possible.
But once you've reach the normal driving speed (which on modern car you'll reach in only half the time than before, according to the summary),
what do you do ? Do you keep pushing the pedal all the way up to 250 km/h and/or until you collide something ?

Nope, at some speed, you'll coast, and at that point the emission of the car will drop dramatically.
The car will automatically go for a different compromise point on the efficiency vs. power scale.
(e.g.: it might even shut some cylinders down).

So, unless the road you drive is not only empty, but consist entirely of red lights spaced each only 20m appart (with red-light cameras to force you to stop and re-accelerate at each), you'll spend most time coasting, and only sporadically accelerating.
So even if the acceleration are optimised for power and don't emit less, the rest of the time the car will be in efficient mode, and over the whole trip, they tend to emit less.

If I had a Tesla Model S I'd probably get frustrated that the battery couldn't even take me on a single night's cruise.

Actually, electric motors are much more power-efficient at accelerating.
You won't be killing your battery as fast as you would be emptying the gas tank.

If you need to constantly stop and accelerate, electric motors are actually much better. That is the reason why electrical vehicle have been used by public services for quite some time. (e.g.: in France, Citroen have been making electric vans for the post office delivery service for nearly 4 decade. This thing even *predates lithium batteries*, the first vans used nickel) (e.g.: unlike in the US with Tesla which concentrate on passenger cars, in Europe most electrical vehicle company have also been producing electrical utility vehicle for quite some time. See also Renault's Z.E. Kangoo)

(This is also where part of the better mileage of hybrid vehicle comes from: if they accelerate on electric, they are more efficient).

Comment other therapies (Score 5, Insightful) 320

The worst part is, if a new antibiotics is discovered, it might help you right now, but after a couple of year, because of over use(*), the bacteria will eventually evolve some resistance against it. So the next patient with the same kind of infection will be again in the same situation...

Maybe time to dust off alternative therapies, like phage therapy ? (**)
Cue in citation of your favorite strategist (Churchill, Sun-Tzu, Machiavelli, etc.) commenting about the millennia-old proverb that the enemy of your enemy is your friend.


(*) : over-prescription, industrial/agricultural use, etc.

(**) : phage are like viruses but specialize in infecting bacteria. So phage therapy is basically curing your sickness, by making your sickness itself sick, with its own sickness, in a kind of pathogen-ception.

Comment TFA (Score 1) 479

Essentially you can either use the same improvements to make the cars more efficient in terms of gas usage or you can make them have more total horsepower.

And according to TFA is that cars are getting overall more efficient exactly because of that.
All the time that the driver isn't spending with the foot stomping on the gaz pedal (which isn't the majority of a normal comute) is actually time during which the car has better efficiency than it's fore runners.

Or, in other words : this efficiency vs. power has been made dynamic and varies according to driver's needs moment by moment.

Technology is gotten that smarter that the driver thinks he's buying a more powerful car, but 99% of time the car will function as an efficient one.

Comment Comparison (Score 1) 255

you will read that Tesla's workplace safety is actually 32% better than the industry average.
From TFA: [Tesla's] record of safety incidents went from slightly above the industry average in late 2016, to a performance in the first few months of 2017 that was 32% better than average.

That was exactly what I was going to ask :
how do these numbers compare with the rest of the industry ?

It's good that they are both :
- making progress (as mentioned in the summary)
- already better than the average.

i.e.: they are making good efforts.

(Compare the situation with Apple's Foxconn reports. They were within the industry average. So on one hand, this wasn't as dramatic as the news wanted to make it seem, on the other hand Apple wasn't putting any effort back then to make things better)

Comment Nope. (Score 1) 415

Not OP but I can easily discern the harmonic beat between ultrasonic and sonic combinations.

In practice :
- actually not at all.

the "beat" frequency is calculated by the delta of the 2 frequencies.
to be able to hear the "beat" you'd need a frequency that is clearly in the hearing domain.
to make it beat with an inaudible ultra-sound you would need a frequency that is clearly above the hearing domain.
(i.e.: We're not speaking 10'000 Hz vs 10'001 Hz)

a delta between such two frequencies is sure to gives a beat frequencies that is beyond the response time of the ear.
i.e.: your inner ear labyrinth receptor won't be able to notice a sound going on and off that fast.

not to mention that the delta might end up being higher than the lower frequency at which point there's no really beat to be heard at all.
(a beat frequency is usuabl <<sound frequency)

in theory :
a beat is just a sound oscillating in volume over time (a type of tremolo if you wish).
in this case you're not actually hearing utlra sound (you don't have receptors for that), you're hearing distorsions in the audible domain, for which you DO have a receptor.
and similarly a sampling rate of 48kHz won't be able to code the ultra sound frequency (beyond nyquist frequency), but can clearly code an audible frequency whose amplitude varies over time.

but that's just about the theory of perceiving or recording a beat a.k.a. an osciliation of volume a.k.a. a tremolo.
for the practicality of a setup with a beat between an audible and inaudible frequency, see above.

for more informations :
- watch this video
- read this wiki

Comment Existing vs usable (Score 1) 415

However, if you understand Fourier's theorm, then you understand you can only capture a 22kHz sine wave. The harmonics get cut off. Even 22kHz is rather high, but its there to get the second harmonic of 11kHz.

I'm not saying that higher frequencies than 22kHz to not exist.
I'm just saying that we lack the receptor to even detect it.
33kHz could be emitted as a harmonic of a source tuned for 11kHz base note (though a 11kHz base note is quite high already and doesn't make much sens musically).
But there's no sane reason to record it and reproduce it.
You're just wasting storage space on something that you'll never be able to perceive.

Translated into the light domain :
I'm not saying that X-Rays do not exist.
I'm just saying that the human eye lack any receptor to detect them.
If your purpose is only to store a photo, you're wasting storage space on storing the x-rays value of image pixels and then trying to reproduce it :
your watchers will never be able to see it, they only see the visual domain.

(If you're a radiologist looking at X-ray picture, it's an entire different story.
the sound domain equivalent is :
Similar to ultra-sound sonars used by the parking assistance of cars)

Comment Pedantism overload (Score 1) 415

but I'm going to be that pedantic twat and point out that some people can reportedly perceive UV light, particularly after cataract surgery. Claude Monet is an oft-cited example.

And I'm going to out-predant you be making you notice I didn't mention which band of UV (UV-A, UV-B, UV-C, etc.)
the rods and cones can perceive UV down to 280nm (but they are blocked out by the len, so if you still have your natural born len, you don't see anything below 390nm).

You can't see 240-260nm UV, even with an artificial eye len, that's why you need a spectrometer to measure DNA content in a sample, you can't do it by naked eye.

UV extends down to 10nm.

Also UV wavelengths are dangerously damaging to the retina (that's why lens evolved to filter them).
Modern artificial lens used in cataract operation do filter UV light for this exact reason.
(Unlike back in Monet's era)

Comment Invisible is not irrelevant. (Score 1) 415

Browser support? Only relevant to web developers (users don't know or care what format the file is).

...they don't care. But most of the web apps they are using are switching or have already switched.

(a different exemple: Spotify doesn't use MP3. Spotify actually uses OGG/Vorbis.
meaning that tons of people use OGG/Vorbis for their music collection instead of MP3 or AAC.
Phasing the system's MP3 codec won't even affect them)

Android support? Might be nice, but without iOS support it's irrelevant as a mobile format.

OPUS is available as a library under a permissive license (same as Vorbis and FLAC, BTW).

Means that for the iOS version, most App can simply package "libopus.dynlib" (or "libvorbis.dynlib") even if Apple doesn't botters.
(Luckily, means that now that the patent expired, a "liblame.dynlib" could be similarly possible)

Meanwhile, there is nothing to indicate OPUS will get wider traction than VORBIS did.

Nothing, except all the application currently installed on your smartphone that already support it and use it.
(most of the voice chat applications, most of the media player, etc.)

If you've talked to someone or left a voice message in WhatsApp, Skype, Facebook Messenger (and countless others), your voice was transmitted using OPUS codec.

Face it, MP3 is still the superior format because no other format can replace it.

MP3 is currently widely available and supported.
OPUS is currently widely available and supported, and has much better quality than anything available for internet use today.
(The exception are non-internet use for 4kbps)

If you are starting an application today that has audio, guess which you are going to pick ?
Current trends in apps show that OPUS is picked.

Comment AV-1 on Apple hardware (Score 1) 415

Too bad Apple refuses to even acknowledge the existence of AV-1,

Again, the other side has Netflix, Google and Amazon on board. (Pretty much nearly all content viewed on-line).
Apple isn't even in a dominant position on this market.

So if they want to make themselves irrelevant, let them...

let alone talk about supporting it on Apple gear or in Apple software.

That's probably due to the fact that they *DO HAVE* H265 licenses,
and they produce their own hardware (which is one of the few that keeps supporting H265 despite the current mayhem).

on the other hand, given the track record of Xiph (Vorbis, FLAC, Speex, OPUS, Theora, etc.), and of such IETF-aproved standards in general (Matroska),
there's going to be beer/free libraries supporting AV-1 under permissive license (short BSD and similar) that can be included easily even in commercial apps.

In other words :
- No, iPhone 8 & 9 will still not support AV-1 because Apple will still be trying to push H265/HEVC using their license into the GPU core of their "A" processors.
- But yes, Netflix and Youtube apps on iPhones, iPad and AppleTV will stream AOMedia AV-1 none the less, simply by embeding their own copy of "libavone.dynlib" or whatever. (Same for Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and other browser apps following IETF standards).

Comment Vertical integration (Score 1) 415

MP3 will probably be supported on pretty every device for the foreseeable. There's literally no reason not to.

There's a very clear reason not to :
Force users to rebuy the song they are used to listen to.

Armor piercing question: How is this a concern for the makers of MP3 PLAYERS and software that plays/encodes MP3s?
Hint: It isn't...

Yes it *DOES*.
I'm quoting 1 sentence further into my post :

If you happen to be in a vertically integrated market, where you both produce the playing device and content shop,

If the manufacturer of the music player and writer of software, happens to *ALSO* be the owner of the shop where the content is sold (and *USUALLY* also produce part of the content),
they have a strong incentive to phase out support for the older formats which are not featured in the shop.

If said manufacturer has a strong market share and brand loyalty (specially if users of their shop are already locked-in by their already-bought music collection, e.g. due to DRM), they can leverage it to try to pull the trick.

Currently Apple, could be in a position where they could realistically try to phase out MP3, and pressure their users to re-buy their old tracks as AAC from iTunes.
I'm not say that they *will*, just that they are in a position where *they could risk trying* even if they probably won't.
(Probably because they are already busy phasing out analog 3mm jacks because... huh... "reasons ?"... in order to pressure their users to re-buy new Apple approved earphones with lightning port or bluetooth wireless).

Historically, Microsoft has been in a slightly different position, a tried to pull one reminiscent of this :
Tried to build a music market - or at least a microsoft standard for music markets to use (remember the "Play for sure" era, before they tried it again with Zune ?), and indirectly tried to pressure hardware player manufacturer :
the certification for "Play for sure" specified an explicit exhaustive list of the format that a device should support.
They could not unlist MP3 - it was way too popular, would have been a commercial suicide.
But OGG/Vorbis was suspiciously missing (and the certification term worded in such an ambiguous way, that supporting OGG/Vorbis might exclude from being "Plays for sure" certified) - probably because it was a format competing favorably in terms of quality back then.

(On other hand, no name Asian manufacturer kept support for Vorbis, they just didn't advertise it, or sometime even advertised both "Plays for sure" and support for Vorbis).

Comment The original serie (Score 4, Insightful) 507

Where the show was designed by the actor's race and sex instead of a plot and a casting call.

On the other hand, even the original serie, from the beginning has tried hard to be inclusive (the communication officier was a african american woman, the navigator comes from the other side of the iron curtain, etc.)

So trying to feature under-represented minory is absolutely nothing new in Star Trek.

The only key question is : are these characters otherwise well written, and are the actors portraying them good ? (or are their "under represented minority" the only noticeable thing about them). but that's hard to judge without watching 1-2 episodes of the serie.
(Which isn't available here around, at least not to me. So I can't judge)

Comment AOMedia's AV-1 (Score 2) 415

AOMedia's AV-1 is attempting to be exactly that but for video.

A codec that is either patent free or whose patent are free.
Free code implementation.
supported by nearly anyone involved in video, including content providers (includes both Google and Netflix, so a sizeable portion of all video played), software makes (Mozilla, VLC, etc.) and hardware manufacturer (AMD, Intel, Broadcom, ARM, etc.)

And there are quite a few big developpers involved :
- Xiph (makers of Daala), Google (VP10) and Cisco (thor)

It's going to do exactly what OPUS did to audio.
probably within a year.

Until then it's either H264 / AVC if you can afford the patents or Google's VP-9.
Stay away from H265 / HEVC, it's a trap (that was the actual incentive to start AOMedia)

Slashdot Top Deals

The most important early product on the way to developing a good product is an imperfect version.