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


Forgot your password?

Comment HP may not be smiling as brightly as they think. (Score 1) 438

"You're forgetting about that whole Windows software compatibility thing."

My fathers businesses continue to use XP precisely because of software compatibility.

The business systems in place have business logic built in Visual BASIC which glues together a bunch of (mostly Microsoft) components. Change a component, and the component breaks; change the OS, and the glue breaks, and EVERYTHING dies.

HP is looking at a cash cow of significant reinvestment in hardware; Microsoft, by EOLing XP in the first place, is looking at a cash cow not only new OSs, but new component sales. SMB (small and medium business) is looking at astronomical costs to keep their workflows running. I have no idea why Microsoft, HP, et. al. think that SMB is the cow from which they are going to be able to get milk, given that larger businesses have established a regulatory environment in which most SMB is barely scraping by as it is.

Personally, I can think of at least three companies where my father will just close the doors, rather than facing a significant reinvestment. At best, he will not grow them or hire new employees to run the XP machines which he can no longer purchase in order to incrementally add the next new employee. In fact, thinking of it that way, as hardware slowly fails, it's more likely he will just lay off one employee per one dead XP machine, at least in the most marginal of these businesses.

HP may not be smiling as brightly as they think.

Comment Re:Glad to see some real pushback (Score 5, Insightful) 323

They do cave in when they think their jobs are on the line..

But they aren't. Everyone in every national-level election for the past twenty years has had their campaign paid for by the same people, often these same people (and groups) sponsored both candidates. And when they leave Congress, they'll have a job waiting for them with one of those groups... on one condition: They don't listen to you or your concerns.

The most we get anymore now from public outrage is this -- open letters that basically say "Nothing is wrong and we're working to fix it as quickly as possible!"

Comment Re:Bad science (Score 0) 152

Seriously, did you even read the damned summary before you post?

Yes, and then I promptly spit mountain dew all over my keyboard because it was yet another in a long string of examples of poor editorial control on slashdot. The study talks about insects, but do you see the specific insect mentioned in the summary? Nope. In fact, the study is about whether the number of these insects in a given area leads to increase mortality... but the summary talks about a "hypothesis" that trees are good for your health. Da fuq they get there?

So I replied to it, and predictably, everyone else who didn't click on the link and realize the summary was a horribly mangled piece of shit modded me down and insulted me just as you did.

But yeah, I'm sure you identified the major problem with the whole study in 10 seconds.

Insults like this, for example. The major problem with the study is not the data, it's the conclusion. Go back and read my damned post again -- I'm deriding the "Trees r grate! lol!" conclusion drawn by the summary of the study. The study itself is flawed not because of its method of data collection but because of the conclusions being drawn from the study. This is an exploratory research study.

A study that was done over several years analyzing 17 years of collected data. But it's wrong, because there is absolutely no way they thought to correct for human behavior, no matter what the summary says.

Yes, and your hand waving and wild gesticulations must mean they're absolutely correct, because nobody has ever gotten an analysis wrong in science, especially not after doing it for "over several years" analyzing "17 years of collected dat--" hangon, sorry, phone's ringing. "Hello? Oh, hello there global climate change research! Yes. Yes. No. Yeah, I know, right? Well, I'll do that. You take care too." Okay, sorry about that, where was I now? Oh right, snarking your snark...

Next time, you could even try reading the full paper before you comment and call them "amateur scientists." Especially when they, you know, have already thought of everything you've pointed out.

Sorry, but I didn't call them amateur scientists. I said there was bad science here. People are drawing conclusions unsupported by the data. And if you go look at the PBS article, you might just find that, unlike the study itself, the people they're talking to do infact make the assertion that "trees = healthy", which is not at all what the data said.

But you keep right on mischaracterizing people's comments and building straw men... it's a real popular past time on NuSlash(tm) nowadays... who needs facts when you can just slam someone for making a thoughtful post that asks a few questions about what the summary posted by the editors concludes. The only thing missing in this shit-slinging snark fest is a wikipedia link to something totally irrelevant and a reply in all caps to the effect of "You don't know what you're talking about". Anonymous Coward, you know what to do...

Comment Re:Bad science (Score 1) 152

Isn't what this work studied. They correlated a specific insect cause of tree death with human welfare. The methodology was specifically constructed to remove confounding factorsâ" things like air pollution killing both the trees and the humans.

What is testing has, at best, a loose relation with what it set out to prove. The test was "the loss of 100 million trees to the emerald ash borer", but they looked at "the relationship between emerald ash borer presence and county-level mortality." These aren't the same thing. What they were looking at was how many of these insects were present. They concluded that the more of these insects in the area, the higher the mortality rate. The trees are the insects principal food, and it's easier to measure the number of trees in an area than the number of insects.

That isn't to say the research is flawless but it was deeper and more carefully constructed that your slashdot arm-chair-expert off the hip comment gives it credit for.

So what you're saying is this "arm-chair-expert off the hip" person is right -- the research is flawed. Which was the point. And unlike an Anonymous Coward "arm-chair insulter", I provided clear reasoning which many people responded to and asked me to be modded up and that it was, indeed, poor science -- a fact you aren't disputing.

The fact that I only pointed out failings exist and didn't go into great detail studying the study, as it were, appears to be the only source of your disrespect, but you're too afraid to actually post under your own name because you know you're making an ad hominid attack.. but figured that remaining anonymous and kow-towing the popular opinion that girls on slashdot must be stupid would get your comment modded up, and me down, because the moderators don't stop and think anymore about what's actually being said... they just go with their feelings.

The methodology is exactly what I'm attacking: That this correlation justifies their conclusion. It doesn't. I actually have the full study pulled up and had looked at it some time before slashdot posted it to the front page -- and having looked it over, I think it's nice as a piece of exploratory research, but I disagree vehemently with both PBS and the OP's summary of the study -- they take a single correlation and somehow expand it to mean "trees = better health".

That's not what the study said. That's not what the science says. And that's not what I said either. To get to that conclusion requires a lot more data than this single point, which doesn't even show a strong correlation. It hasn't reached a level of statistical importance that would even justify further research. And while yes, there is a "growing body of evidence" that the natural environment provides health benefits... well fucking duh. How is that advancing our knowledge in any meaningful way? It isn't! We already knew that living inside the core of a nuclear reactor is worse for your health than living in the suburb it serves. Duh, of course environment has an impact on health.

But it is amazingly, confoundingly difficult, to say what in the environment causes health benefits. There's very little solid ground to stand on here; Most of what we know is correlative, and weak at best. A lot, and I mean a lot of additional research has to be done before we can even get past those stupid stickers on bottles of oxygen that say "Known to cause cancer in the State of California" let alone to the point where we can confidently start making changes to the environment knowing they will most likely lead to improvements in human health.

That's the state of the art as it exists today, and that's not something being said by a "arm-chair expert" as an "off the hip comment"... but by the majority of the scientific community. And frankly, I feel sorta dirty having to justify the call for more data, and more research... it's the single most commonly heard thing amongst scientists... "Well, the data looks promising, but I think we need to study this more before we draw any conclusions." I've said pretty much exactly that, and I get slapped in the face by jerks like you for being an "arm chair expert"... *shakes head* Really disappointed, slashdot...

Comment Re:"Performance should closely match" (Score 2) 271

The summary suggests that the "performance should closely match the recently released Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell processor", but nothing in the article, or anything released about this chip so far, supports that. It's all just guesswork until we see some actual benchmarks from the chip.

If they're just cranking up the clock speed of an existing design, the performance should be quite predictable. The difficult-to-predict thing is the lifespan of the part. Atoms migrate faster as heat and voltage go up.

The limit on clock speed today is from heat dissipation. AMD got 8GHz out of a CPU a few years ago by cooling with liquid helium, but it's not worth the trouble.

Comment Re:Yes (Score 5, Insightful) 397

Or maybe they could submit a request to the NSA.

Not really necessary. TFA:

It requires officers to have 'reasonable grounds' to believe the law was broken.

Officer A: "Hey Lou, you see that cell phone?"
Officer B: "Yeah man, I do."
Officer A: "And the car's wrecked, right?"
Officer B: "Sure is, Lou."
Officer A: "Well there you have it. Reasonable grounds. Cell phone in plain site at the scene of an accident. No different than finding a beer bottle in the back seat and 'reasonably' concluding he could have been drunk..."
Officer B: "Sounds like a plan. Hey, you know we can't ordinarily go into glove boxes without a warrant, but I think I might have heard something vibrating in there!"
Officer A: "Could be a cell phone. Better open it up and look."
Officer B: "It sure could man... it sure could... hey, isn't it so much easier not having to ask anyone before we do whatever the hell we feel like these days?"
Officer A: "Sure is! Checks and balances, audits, constitutional freedoms... they were just slowing us down all these years."

Comment Bad science (Score 3, Insightful) 152

Take a good look guys. This guy just committed a basic mistake in method. He made a leap unsupported by the facts. The presence and quantity of trees may be correlated with healthier people, but that in no way means there's a connection. He hasn't controlled for environmental factors. The most basic would be answering the question -- why are there more trees in a given area? In densely populated urban areas, there will be fewer trees, obviously... and we know cities have more pollution than a prestine wilderness. But that doesn't mean the trees are what's making people healthy... it could just be that the absence of pollution is.

This is an incomplete analysis and an attempt by an amateur scientist to start with a conclusion and work his way back to find supporting facts, while ignoring the fact that in science, you do things the other way around. And if you don't, you get crap like this.

I'm not about to go throw myself in a lake and start tree bathing because I think it'll improve my health... at best it'll be a placebo reaction. At worst, it'll kill me due to my allergies. What I'd do instead is try to find populations where trees are present at various threshold concentrations and match the environments as closely as possible so the only control would be the number of trees in a given area, and see if the correlation still holds.

Oh, and something to be aware of... richer neighborhoods have more trees than poorer neighborhoods, to the point that if you take satellite photography of a large metropolitan area, that alone can predict to a high degree of accuracy where the rich people live. Is this because they can afford to keep their environment cleaner as well?

You have to control for human behavior in this, or your analysis is broken.

Comment Re:Cruelty to animals plain and simple (Score 1) 62

Hmm, I must have been absent the day our history class learned about Nazi experiments in implanting electrodes in the antennae of Jews so as to control them with cute little RF backpacks...

I really shouldn't have to say this... I mean, it ought to be painfully obvious, but I see you got modded up on this, so I feel compelled to respond: what the fuck are you smoking, man? Er, I mean, Citation Needed. Seriously...

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

I wonder if God said anything about our cruelty to each other and slow destruction of the planet... domination was inevitable. Destruction wasn't.

RF cockroach backpacks are just an advanced technique for exercising dominion over a creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 100% authorized by the relevant deity.

This technology has been around since the time of the greeks, who discovered that electricity caused dead frogs to twitch. It's been long known that muscles of animals (including cockroaches) respond to electrical impulses. Adding an RF 'backpack' to the equation doesn't change the underlying science or make it new. We've known how to modulate RF to carry signals since the turn of the last century.

Must be a real slow news day on Slashdot to be letting quotes from the Bible and paranoid blithering about nazis and jews get modded up...

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.