Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Why not blame the manufacturer? (Score 1) 262

If you're doing something important on your computer that requires error checking and correction, you should either a) get your employer to pay for the hardware to run it on (if it's a work thing), or b) pay for the hardware to run it on yourself (if it's a personal/self-employed thing). What you should *not* do, is use the wrong tool for the job, like running important error-sensitive operations on consumer grade hardware.

Comment Re:Why not blame the manufacturer? (Score 5, Interesting) 262

There's something you can do about it. It's very easy, but you won't like it.

Make every component in triplicate. Everything in the CPU, everything in the RAM, everything in storage, etc. If the three aren't equal, go with the value shared by two of them and rewrite the different one with that value.

Not only is this not actually all that easy (all of your triplicate systems have to be clocked together in sync, you need a shitload of extra hardware to do the comparison, etc.) it's grossly unnecessary. Standard off-the-shelf error detection and correction can (and routinely does) handle radiation induced errors. It just costs a bit more, because it's a business-level feature. It doesn't matter if that MP3 of Taylor Swift gets mildly corrupted (might even sound better that way, zing), but it very much *does* matter if that bank account gets a flipped bit.

Comment Re:The republicans will... (Score 4, Interesting) 399

The whole point of all technology is to lessen the need for human work, because if you need human work then you need other people and if you need them they've got leverage to demand things from you.

That's an incredibly cynical point of view. It's also completely and frankly rather obviously bullshit. The increase of technology and the rise of human civilization has done nothing but vastly increase the dependency each human has on each other. It used to be every couple fed themselves and their children. Then humans banded into tribes and the hunter/gatherers did the feeding, and the others took care of the children/old/weak. Then we made cities, and one farmer fed three or four. Now we have combine harvesters, and one farmer feeds a hundred. There is maybe a few dozen humans alive today in the US who are truly self-sufficient, who do and could continue to survive with the help of no others, while even a few hundred years ago half or more of the human population could do so (at least for a few years). Technology has made specialization a requirement, and with that has come a level of interdependence unrivaled in human history, and that interdependence is if anything getting stronger (now entire countries rely on other countries, in a hundred years that could become entire planets).

Comment Re:Real answer... (Score 1) 128

VR in it's current form has many flaws. The resolution, while pretty good, is closer (relatively speaking) to flip-phones than it is a modern smartphone. The headsets are a bit too heavy, the FOV while good isn't great, the wires are annoying, and you need a beefy computer to power them. And of course it's expensive.

What it is not, is sickness inducing. The technology, as it is now, does not cause nausea. I suppose someone extremely sensitive could feel unwell after using it for a while, but for the average (or indeed even for most fairly sensitive people) the technology itself will not cause sickness. Now, some software for it certainly *can* induce some pretty gut-wrenching nausea, if it wasn't developed properly: developers are used to flatscreen 3D programming, where you can do horribly unnatural camera movements that'd make the most iron-stomached person upchuck in VR (I mean, some games on flatscreen monitors can make people nauseous). But the technology? No, nausea is solved from a hardware point of view. Of course there'll be naysayers, especially on Slashdot ("less space than a Nomad", anyone?), but VR isn't a gimmick, it isn't 3D TV (though ironically it's probably the best way to actually view 3D movie content), it isn't the VirtualBoy, it's a gamechanging technology. Which also isn't to say it's about to change the game anytime soon. Like any early technology, it's a few generations away from really coming into its own, but it's already well on its way.

Comment Re:reprioritizing, not cutting (Score 5, Insightful) 660

If you have a resource that's cheap and you wall it off, what do you call that? Typically, we call it "artificial scarcity." Somehow it's different if the resource is labor.

Yes, yes it is. That's why we banned slavery some time ago: because we recognized that human beings are more than just a resource. It's also why we restrict strip mining operations, require environment impact analysis, and set minimum wages, despite the fact that all of those artificially increase costs. Because the moral and practical consequences of *not* doing so outweight the financial burdens.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1) 899

For leftist liberals, you have Barack Obama who kindly waited for hecklers during his speech, Michele Obama and her "when they go low, we go high" and Hillary Clinton, who maybe smiled too much but did not creep up behind Trump in a threatening/stalking manner during the Town Hall debate. This has led to, for example, the Women's March with about 4 arrests among 3 million marchers (around one part per million) across the country.

And, of course, Black Lives Matter followers torturing and murdering a special needs person (not to mention rioting and looting, which I guess I did just mention), "liberals" successfully using threats of violance to ban speakers from campuses, etc. Of course, most BLM and "liberals" don't do anything of the kind, and totally wouldn't endorse behaviour like that. It's just super easy to make a political side (any political side) look good or bad if you start cherry-picking. Shit, I bet I could make Mister Rogers look bad if you gave me enough time. Well, maybe not Mister Rogers, but just about anyone and anything else.

Comment Re:10 Shocking Facts New Science.... (Score 3, Informative) 139

I don't know all the ramifications (as I don't work in either CMB or distance measurement astrophysics), but the difference is pretty small (the Planck measurement was ~67 1/(km*Mpc), compared to this which was 72 1/(km*Mpc)). This measurement, now I look at the actual numbers, is actually closer to the measurement most of the CMB experiments have gotten (Planck got lower than most, albeit with smaller error bars). FWIW, the measurements are all a few standard deviations away from each other (as a rule you need more than 5 standard deviation for results to really be considered in disagreement), so really it's not a major discrepancy.

If the CMB measurement turns out to be wrong, it *could* indicate some interesting new physics (modified gravity, some new species of dark matter, dark energy doesn't behave quite like we think it does, that kind of thing) which would be very interesting indeed. But, we're still a ways away from being able to say that with any certainty.

Comment Re:10 Shocking Facts New Science.... (Score 4, Informative) 139

This is one of the "many more measurements". Basically, there are two traditionally two ways to measure the Hubble constant: from supernovae, and from the CMB. Recently (i.e. the past few years) these two sets of measurements have disagreed about the value, with the CMB measurement shooting lower, and supernovae shooting higher, and both sides of the debate having good reasons to doubt the other. This looks to be a method independent of both of the others, which is a really good thing. Not that the linked article explains this, or gives a link to the damned paper which would probably explain this itself.

Comment Re:Trump! (Score 3, Informative) 194

I mean, I'm not Trump supporter (by any means), but from the original Bloomberg report:

In late November, IBM completed at least its third round of firings in 2016, according to former and current employees. They don't know how many people have lost their jobs but say it's probably in the thousands, with many of the positions shipped to Asia and Eastern Europe.

Or, in other words, TFA has absolutely zero numbers on how many people were actually fired. They instead asked employees to estimate how many of their fellow employees they thought were fired. No facts, no figures, pure 100% speculation from employees who we have no reason to suspect know anything at all about how many people were actually fired. It might be true, but there's precisely zero evidence that it is, and it's being reported like a well-sourced fact. Modern day journalism, everybody.

Comment Re:Security expert? (Score 1) 377

Screw your "regardless." Honest people wouldn't have taken it. Same as I should be able to leave my doors unlocked and not have strangers walk into my home and take stuff.

Yeah, and the world should be full of unicorns that poop gummydrops. However, here in the real world, if you leave your doors unlocked and something gets stolen, I, and every other reasonable person on the planet, will call you an idiot (because that is an idiotic thing to do). Not that you are the one to blame for the crime. That's not what's happening in any of those cases (well, there are a few people who really do blame the victim, but they're also idiots). No, you'd be an idiot because you failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent yourself from becoming a victim.

Comment Re:oops (Score 5, Interesting) 296

Probably no one. With a few notable exceptions (bacterial meningitis, TB) most bacterial infections aren't very contagious. You mainly pick them up if you're exposed to a large source of them in the environment (drinking or swimming in contaminated water, poorly cleaned kitchens, cuts, that kind of thing) or if you have an already weakened immune system.

Comment Re:Mystery solved (Score 1) 133

XX vs XY chromosome (which determines the sex of humans) is determined by which spermatozoa attaches to the egg, and is therefore determined at conception, barring any genetic abnormality (such as Klinefelter syndrome). OP is, for some reason, confusing gender with sex, or possibly both with sexual characteristics, which are not quite the same thing (though all three are very strongly correlated).

Slashdot Top Deals

We will have solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one technical problem -- how to run a sunbeam through a meter.