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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:There's throughput and then there's latency (Score 2, Interesting) 231

I seem to recall that some Linux drivers try to handle this automatically (Intel gigabit chips?). They do interrupts when the traffic is below some threshold and switch to polling when things get busy. The main reason, as you say, is to avoid interrupt storms; polling becomes cheaper on CPU time than interrupts when there is a higher than x% chance of there being packets waiting. It is also more resilient to DoS or server overload - if f.ex. an Apache server receives more requests than it can handle, throttling the polling speed makes more CPU available for handling requests instead of wasting it in interrupts receiving packets that the web server is too overloaded to handle anyway.


World of Warcraft, the Restaurant Screenshot-sm 73

An Anonymous Coward writes "China's online gaming themed service industry appears to be booming, riding China's fascination with online gaming all the way to the top is a Chinese restaurateur with his World of Warcraft inspired eatery." I would recommend the Critter Bites and the Haunted Herring, but would warn against the Carrion Surprise.

Comment Re:Hypocrisy in action (Score 1) 409

I hate DRM too, I wish it would die. But that's orthogonal to my point: that IP has value, and the IP creator deserves to be compensated appropriately for that value, somehow. I obviously don't know how given the zero-replication-cost problem.

Is it really zero cost? While the cost is going down, and will go further down in the future with better/faster/larger/cheaper storage devices and transmission networks there is always going to be some cost in maintaining the distribution network, cataloging, indexing, making sure metadata is correct, making sure the content is malware free, updates/fixes. As such, people might find that an all-you-can-eat DRM-free subscription to a music label or software company might be preferable even if the same content is available for free on P2P.

Information goods also don't exist in a vacuum, communities form around many of them. Downloading an album from piratebay does not give the same experience as being a member of a fan club / community and interacting with the rock band. Downloading a software program from P2P is of less value than being part of a community around the author of the software. For information goods where you have a large and/or very faithful fanbase/community, it might be possible for the creator to extract sufficient income from them. (I think I once saw a paper showing that a book author or a band could get a fairly decent living out of a surprisingly small number of faithful fans)

There is also the fact that IP creators are in a rather privileged position compared to other workers. For example, the need for farmers dropped because the work they did were replaced by machines; the same thing has happened time and again, human labor replaced by machines. I don't really see how machines can replace the need for human creativity. Unless we create true AI, we will always need IP creators. We will always want music, books, better medicines, software.. If the market can't find solutions for how to compensate them, government will have to step in.

Comment Re:It's about time (Score 1) 409

From the complaint, it looks like it is only consumer-grade products that they got when they bought Linksys. Even if they included some IOS software in some of the products, the absolute worst case scenario for Cisco would be that they would have to dual-license those particular files as GPL. It would not force Cisco to GPL the entire IOS.

My guess is that Cisco has been dragging their feet because (1) it would be expensive to get into full compliance (they would have to dig up the build environment / source code repositories for old Linksys products, some of which they might not even have anymore) (2) by providing full source to the consumer-grade products, 3rd party firmware for those could be developed that would compete with Cisco's more expensive gear, and (3) they never expected the FSF to sue.

Comment Re:The US and US flags (Score 1) 622

How about its easier to say im defending the flag. Most Americans should understand that statement to mean you are defending all the flag stands for etc. Only asshats try to make that statement into something its not. Are you an asshat?

Most AMERICANS would. But this is the Internet, with people from lots of different countries and cultures.

When an American says "defending the flag" as short-hand for what he really means by that statement, it creates opportunities for misunderstanding and confusion when people that are not American read it. This entire thread started because a non-american wanted to understand better what meaning Americans applies to their flag.

Comment Re:The US and US flags (Score 1) 622

Discussions like this unfortunately tend to devolve into flamewars, and it seems other comments on this article has already gone that way. That is sad, because it would be really interesting to get to the bottom of why there is this cultural difference in how the flag is perceived in EU and US.

So what are military personnel?

I think we might be on to something here.

In America, the flag is culturally bound to the military as a whole and personal military service, right? So "disrespecting the flag" is seen as the same as disrespecting the sacrifice and service of both current and past members of the military?

In Europe, the flag does not hold that kind of position culturally, and I think it has to do with WWII. Imagine being born in Germany after 1945. Imagine what coming to terms with what your country did would do to post-war culture and the attitudes it would create towards the kind of imagery used by Germany leading up to, and during WWII. The flag was an important part of that imagery.

I think that is the reason why we see the flag so differently, but I would appreciate comments or corrections.

So, for someone with a US culture the flag is something to be proud of and a symbol of military service and personal sacrifice for the country. For someone with an EU culture, a flag is a symbol for one's country but it is also a symbol of something horrible that happened in Europe's recent past.

Heh, no wonder this leads to flamewars.

Comment Re:God (Score 1) 683

The SETI project is a modern manifestation of mankind's intuition that there may be or should be more to reality than our own existence here in this little corner of the vast universe.

Or it is simply a modern expression of man's need to understand the world around him. We see this behaviour in other animals, too "Curious as a cat". A need to understand the world would be a huge advantage for survival, both in early man and in other animals. I see no reason why this need should somehow vanish now that understanding the world is not that important for the immediate survival of the individual.

"the meaning of life"? Why is there this human quest for finding purpose of existence?

These questions would not arise naturally from sufficiently powerful cognitive abilities and the realisation that our mortal body is, indeed, mortal?

Why is it that the idea of sacrifice, the giving up of something valuable, often needed or at least useful for survival, is seen only in humans?

You want an explanation for the act of sacrifice in, say, agrarian societies? Put yourself in the mind of one of those farmers - one bad harvest and half the kids will starve to death. Would you not do anything and everything that you possibly could to affect the weather?

Combined with the "false positive" inclination to find agency in patterns (that would as I explained be an advantage for survival), is it really such a leap of mind to see that sacrifice to gods would seem like a good idea at that time?

In our modern world, many like to think we can look to science to explain everything

Well, they are wrong. Science can explain a lot (and it turns out, a lot more than people thought possible only 100 years ago), but there are things that are simply impossible to handle with the scientific method. If we are in a closed universe (as current models seem to show), then it will simply be impossible to test various hypotheses about the ultimate cause of the universe.

Science today explains at least some of what people looked to religion for in times past. But again, I see no chance in science explaining everything and everything with absolute certainty. What some religious people would have to do, however, is to change certain literal interpretations of their respective holy texts in order to avoid clash with science.

Science is limited to physical laws and phenomena, specifically the law of cause and effect. Science cannot, is not equipped to deal with effects where a cause cannot be established.

True. I don't think I've ever said otherwise.

"Is it possible for anyone to distinguish sufficiently advanced technology from the supernatural or miracle?"

I'm not sure I follow.. One could distinguish, I guess, based on what effort and energy would be required - at least if one posits an omnipotent god. Fiddling with the background microwave radiation of the universe seems like one, it would take an incredible amount of energy, power and control to put a message there.

Comment Re:That's entirely beside the point (Score 1) 683

...The Bible was translated and spread by humans, not by God.....

Of course God is incapable of employing humans as his agents, isn't he?

If one attributes the acts of humans to the will of God how is that any different than attributing the fact that a stone falls when I drop it to the will of God? That sounds Ash'ari to me..

Speaking of attributing agency where there is none, there is an evolutionary advantage to that behaviour. If one hears a noise in the bushes, it might be just the wind or it might be a tiger getting ready to pounce. If it is just the wind but you think it is a tiger and run away, there is not much harm done. On the other hand, if you think it is the wind while it really is a tiger... Those that are "false positive" in the meaning that they are more likely to attribute agency (even if it turns out to be wrong) have a higher chance of survival than those that are "false negative" in the meaning that they are more likely to think that there's nothing there (and hence have a higher chance of becoming a predator's meal).

I doubt that Newton, Pascal or Galileo or most of the other early scientists would be able to obtain tenure at any modern secular university of our day.

Ah, so you've seen Expelled then? Well, if you want to reinforce a persecution complex.. Is the film still only showed in closed screenings, or is it finally available to the rest of us so that we can publicly correct the factual errors in it?

(...and that rocks, fossils and the total sum of what we can test and observe are "witnesses"....)

They are witnesses, whose testimony is interpreted today with the underlying worldview that there is no God and everything these witnesses tell us is filtered through the presupposition that the entire universe is a result of probabilistic mechanical processes, not involving any thought or planning.

It is true that humans are rationalising animals, we have an in-built bias to choose explanations that confirm what we already believe. We have known this for a long time, and that is why the process of science (scientific method) has all these rules to try to eliminate bias. Just saying "goddidit!" doesn't really explain anything, it does not produce hypothesis, models and predictions that we can put to the test in any sensible way. As such, it is easy to come to the belief that science is hostile to religion or the supernatural. It really isn't, it is just a methodology that tries to eliminate *all* kinds of human bias.

All laws of nature are quite independent of the underlying beliefs or philosophies of the scientists investigating them to learn how they operate.

True. Ultimate cause is likely outside the set of problems and questions that can be processed by the scientific process. As such, our different beliefs about ultimate cause is something that we will just have to agree to disagree on - it is something that is likely not testable, so that is an area where we will just have beliefs and opinions. What one can test is specific predictions that certain religious beliefs profess (in the case of xtianity, for example global flood in recent history, or 6Ky old universe).

Is it not strange that so much of science is devoted to the past, trying to understand how things came to be as they are?

Why so? Everything we see around us are products of what happened in the past, so investigating the past is important to understanding the present and predicting the future.

All of these have to be interpreted and all interpretations are subject to the basic philosophies of the interpreter. There is no way to get around this.

That is more an argument against religion than it is against science. Science does at the very least attempt to minimise or eliminate the bias of the interpreter.

Hubble and others INTERPRETED this shift to be caused by motion of the stars and galaxies due to the well-known Doppler effect.

Countless dissertations and theses have been written on the rapid motion of galaxies and the so-called Big Bang.

Red-shift is not the only reason that current theory posits a Big Bang. Other observations that point in the same direction include microwave background radiation, the relative ratio of different elements (lots of hydrogen/helium, less amount of heavier elements, and the relative abundance of each), the large-scale structure of cosmos, and other things.

You seem to have a cardboard strawman understanding of the scientific process. A hypothesis does not become accepted as scientific theory based on a single source of observational data. It only becomes a theory when it fits with several different observations (and it is still possible to falsify a theory if new lines of investigation show observational data that does not fit).

Rather than dump long-held, cherished theories developed over many years of academic studies, scientists were forced to come up with exotic constructs and ideas.

You mean like quantum physics? There was huge resistance in the scientific community to hypothesis like Einstein's relativity or quantum physics. If scientists were so resistant to throw away their "cherished theories" then they would still stick to Newton. Science is less resistant to new theories than you seem to believe, but science requires that these theories are supported by observational and experimental data.

Dark matter, dark energy, black holes, quasars and neutron stars and all sorts of other weird and wonderful objects are postulated to exist in the distant reaches of the universe.

There is much more observational and experimental evidence for these things than you seem to believe. In fact, I wonder if your dislike for science is actually rooted in misconceptions about what science is, what current accepted scientific theories actually say, the process that science uses for testing hypotheses and the amount of observational and experimental data that is needed for something to become accepted as a scientific theory.

For example, early in our discussion you said something to the effect of "we have never observed a bird giving birth to a plant" as if that in some sort of way was evidence that the theory of evolution was false. The theory of evolution claims no such thing. If you knew what the claims that ToE makes are, you would know that. Instead you argued against some sort of cardboard model of what you *think* ToE says. Which makes me wonder how much you actually know about current mainstream science.

You are mainly arguing against strawmen, against some made up idea you have about what science says instead of arguing against actual science.

When he first published this he was vilified by the mainstream astronomical and cosmological community and his data was dismissed as measurement errors.

"Vilified" as in the way Einstein's theory of relativity was vilified, you mean? Or quantum theory? What you interpret as "vilified" is just the scientific process at work. If a single new observation disagrees with an accepted theory that is supported by many different observations, one of the things that happens first is to see if there is any bias or methodology faults with the experiment/observation. That happens in *all* parts of science, not just those parts of science that you think is anti-god.

To their surprise and chagrin, their measurements corroborated Tifft's research.

Exactly. One other thing that happens is that others try to repeat the observation to see if their is really something there. That's just science at work. Why do you say "chagrin and surprise"? What they found is that red-shift shows some pattern of quantization, but that this pattern is nothing unusual when looking at the large scale structure of the universe.

What do you want, exactly? One observation found something that looked contrary to current theory. People investigated. It was found to not be so contrary after all. That is just science at work.

But for some reason you think that this is "vilification" and "opposition to cherished belief, therefore discounted". That is not what happened at all.

If the cherished interpretation of present-day measurable science is so hard to change with new data

It isn't. It is however hard to change long established theories that are supported by many different sources with just a single observation. If it had been found that the slight patterns in red-shift could not be incorporated in current theories, science would have gone into overdrive by scientists smelling Nobel Prizes.

In the study of origins and history, it is not possible to time travel and determine if the interpretation of the testimony of the witnesses is correct.

"All is witness, all is just interpretation, therefore goddidit". Ash'ari.

Comment Re:That's entirely beside the point (Score 1) 683

There really is no human answer to this question, but it is to me a clear manifestation, that a higher power, specifically God, is behind this. Jesus specifically predicted that his word would be spread to all tongues and nations and once that was accomplished He will return to Earth.

The Bible was translated and spread by humans, not by God. Why do you insist on seeing divine agency where none is needed?

No. If you study of the history of early western science and scientists you would learn that most of them were Christians.

So? Most people in the western world at that time were Christian. It is not exactly a big surprise that most western scientists at that time were Christian too. Not to mention that Christian doctrine at that time was not openly hostile to science, at least not to most of the science that was being done at that time. So I fail to see what this part of your answer has to do with Ash'ria.

My comparison to Ash'ria doctrine was a comparison to *your* arguments in this discussion we've had, not a comparison to general Christian doctrine. It is *you* who say stuff like "all theory is grey" and that rocks, fossils and the total sum of what we can test and observe are "witnesses" that has no more or less value as facts than the Bible. You are putting *one book* against *observed reality*, and you choose to give the book more weight. This is far out on the shallow end of the Bell curve compared to mainstream xtians and current xtian doctrine.

You do not have to reject your belief in God in order to accept mainstream science. Lots of people manage to do that just fine.

That really is the heart of the issue. We really don't want to be held accountable for our bad behavior.

We've been down this road before. Can you provide some *facts* for the assertion above? Do you *really* believe that God is the only source of morality? Do you *really* believe that the only reason one might have for choosing not to believe in the xtian god is because one wants to avoid punishment?

It is because of this, that we humans go to such great lengths to explain the existence of this incredible universe and all the teeming life forms here on earth, by any and all means EXCEPT an intelligent creator God.

Yeah, suuure. All the scientists toiling away at trying to increase our understanding of the world are really only doing so because they want to believe they can escape the wrath of Abraham's God.

In the Bible we read: "It is appointed unto men to die once, but after that comes the judgment". The first part of this sentence cannot be disputed, but the second part is not given much credence anymore today, especially by those who read and post to this Internet /. forum

It might perhaps be that /. is exposing you to a different part of the world than you are used to? It might perhaps be that your current interpretation of the Bible is not as prevalent as you might have been led to believe?

Slashdot Top Deals

A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. -- P. Erdos