Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Practical? (Score 1) 99

I want crypto that has a good chance of outlasting the heat death of the universe

Why, are you Doctor Who and got the key to unraveling space and time or something? And even if someone should bother, do you really care if crypto-archaeologists find your tin foil hat conspiracies or pr0n collection (I was considering saying love letters and gf sex video, but it's /.) many thousand years from now when you and everyone who ever knew you is countless generations dead? I do care about 20 or 50 years from now but unless we make significant progress towards immortality in that time, I hardly care what happens after I become worm food.

Comment Re:The magic is dead. (Score 2) 131

Computing is pretty much ubiquitous nowadays. When I first got into computing back in grade school around 1981-82, computers were just this incredibly awesome thing.

And no matter how fast technology goes there's a diminishing return, like the difference between CGA, EGA and VGA is never coming back no matter how much people talk about 4K, 10 bit, HDR, Rec. 2020 and so on. Doubling from 1MB to 2MB meant more than 1GB to 2GB. The last time I was genuinely floored by new hardware was in 2002 with Morrowind when I installed a new GPU with hardware T&L. Suddenly the grass looked like grass, the sea looked like sea, things started to have realistic textures and shadows and whatnot. Sure in sum we've come far since then, but never in huge leaps like that. That and modem -> DSL was also huge, but of course not as huge as getting Internet in the first place.

Comment Re:If you have "travel mode" on (Score 1) 123

Because Travel Mode is an indicator that you've got something to hide, and thus, must be using social media to send encoded terrorist messages.

Maybe, but most likely they'll just see you as another nuisance maker trying to make their job difficult. And in their opinion it's important, valuable, patriotic and you're either non-American or one of the wusses they defend. I'm sure the TSA system has some informal way to shitlist a person so he'll get picked for extra security screenings, luggage checks, extended questioning, "problems" processing forms etc. so any kind of solution that lets the TSA know you're trying to obstruct or evade them is kinda a non-starter.

Sometimes I think terrorists are just nature's way of weeding out the violent and stupid- especially suicide bombers.

I think we'd run of places to blow up before we'd run out of violent and stupid people. Also, most of them manage a pretty solid kill:death ratio so if 50 people of average intelligence dies and one nutjob the average doesn't move much at all.

Comment Re:I want to see the results first (Score 1) 298

I worked once on a very large project that tried to do something similar for the Dutch tax service: put the (ever changing) tax regulations in some form of specification language, and compile that to C# code. I was a contractor for some time on that project. After a 160 milion EUR budget overflow and some questions about it in the parliament the project was significantly reduced in its ambitions.

Oddly enough this is one of those cases that should have worked. I mean if I have a tax filling all the rules and requirements should be specified and I should be able to follow the tax calculation step by step, there shouldn't be any unspoken or ambigious requirements about what applies and in what order to evaluate it. There is only supposed to be one correct answer. What it probably means is that the tax code is so complex nobody actually understands it and that whatever the actual code does is the de facto tax system, regardless of whether it matches the specifications.

Comment Re:R&D (Score 1) 100

Apple spends serious coin on Research and Development; far more than their competition.

This is almost true, though the vast majority of Apple's R&D funding is firmly at the D end of the spectrum. IBM used to spend a lot more than Apple on research, though they've cut down a lot. Microsoft still does (around $5bn/year on MSR). These companies and Google (and Oracle, and so on) all throw grants at universities for research, which Apple doesn't. It wasn't until last the last few months that Apple even published any of their research.

Comment Re:AI Snippets... (Score 1) 298

In this respect, it's not really any different from stuff genetic algorithms have been doing for decades. If you have a set of executable tests that can tell if the algorithm is working correctly, then you can evolve something that will pass the tests. Of course, you have absolutely no idea how it will behave on inputs not covered by your tests.

Comment Re:sign of decline (Score 1) 100

Sometimes. Apple already has their 1 Infinite Loop building and then most of the office buildings nearby along De Anza and a few nearer the middle of town. They're pretty short on space. It makes sense for them to be building a new big building, and the cost difference between building a new boring building and a new shiny building is pretty small. This will let them move a bunch of people who need to collaborate into offices near each other, rather than having them spread across the various De Anza buildings.

From what people were saying when I was at Apple a couple of weeks ago, it's actually coming a bit too late. The company has grown faster than they expected when they started planning and so rather than being able to move everyone from De Anza into IL2, they're having to identify sets of people who need to collaborate and move them, leaving quite a few behind in De Anza. If your company is growing faster than your ability to build office space to house them, that's generally a good sign (though the insane planning permission situation in the Bay Area means that it happens there a lot more often than you'd expect).

Comment Re:FINALLY! (Score 1) 269

Well that's a post-hoc justification, if AMD can't compete in a market they can:

a) Make a comeback
b) Exit that market
c) Fail as a company

If it's a market full of competition b) and c) aren't a big deal but if it's the last competitor and it'll become a monopoly it's a pretty big deal. You can still 'vote with your wallet.' but in a one-party state it's not worth much. A boxer on the ropes doesn't need a knock-out punch to know he's in trouble. It's obvious to everyone, including themselves. And AMD has been diversifying into other markets and dancing on the ropes for quite some time now. Consider these two scenarios:

AMD Intel
(Bulldozer) (Sandy Bridge)
*buy Intel, AMD exits high end market*
(no offer) (Ivy Bridge - near monopoly rent, little innovation)
*buy Intel, no real choice*
(no offer) (Broadwell - near monopoly rent, little innovation)
*buy Intel, no real choice*
(no offer) (Haswell - near monopoly rent, little innovation)
*buy Intel, no real choice*
(no offer) (Skylake - - near monopoly rent, little innovation)
*buy Intel, no real choice*
(no offer) (Kaby Lake - near monopoly rent, little innovation)
*buy Intel, no real choice*

AMD Intel
(Bulldozer) (Sandy Bridge)
*prop up AMD by buying inferior offer*
(poor offering) (better offering)
*prop up AMD by buying inferior offer*
(poor offering) (better offering)
*prop up AMD by buying inferior offer*
(poor offering) (better offering)
*prop up AMD by buying inferior offer*
(poor offering) (better offering)
*prop up AMD by buying inferior offer*
(poor offering) (better offering)
*prop up AMD by buying inferior offer*

Would we be better off in the long run? I'd argue that quite possibly both AMD and Intel customers would be better off in the long run by occasionally taking one for the team, even if AMD customers got the short end of the stick every time. Except we're not a team, so we all do what's best for us individually and lose as a team of consumers. This is not the Intel/Pentium IV situation, when you kick the big incumbent to innovate that's entirely different. Like you, I'm cautiously optimistic that this is AMD's Hail Mary save in the last moment. But it was far from given than this would be the outcome.

Comment So essentially test rides with passengers (Score 4, Interesting) 114

All trips will include two Uber engineers in the front seats as safety drivers

Google has also done this several times as a PR stunt without the taxi fare, they let a legally blind man ride with them back in 2012. I would imagine the fare is pretty irrelevant anyway when you have an expensive test vehicle and two engineers to pay. So what's really new here that hasn't already been done 5 years ago? Is there any reason to believe that in 5 years it'll be any different? I understand it's difficult, but I'm getting tired of the hype that self-driving cars are right around the corner. Two safety drivers on every ride isn't exactly self-driving. Any bets on when you can actually get into the back of a self-driving car with no helpers, no license and have the car drive? I'm starting to guess 2030+ while like totally being just "a few years out" all the way...

Comment Re:will probably take off with next gen hardware (Score 1) 147

Hololens is not VR

Indeed. AR doesn't seem to trigger the same motion sickness responses as VR, because you retain all of the visual cues from the real world.

Microsoft is once again creating a product that nobody will use.

Microsoft has created a technology that anyone can use without feeling motion sick, but you think that it will lose in the marketplace to one that about 80% of people can use without feeling motion sick? That's an interesting perspective.

Comment Re:It's just too expensive for the hardware (Score 1) 147

It's not so clear with 3D. It's something of a misnomer to call current displays 2D and this kind of VR interface 3D. Both provide a subset of the dozen or so cues that the human brain uses to turn inputs into a 3D mental model. They both, for example, manage occlusion and distance blurring, but neither manages (yet) to correctly adjust the focal depth of parts of the image that are further away. Motion sickness is caused by disagreements between some of these cues and between the other cues that you use to build your mental model of the world. VR adjusts the image based on your head position (though latency here can cause problems as the visual signal and the inner ear signal come at different times), but it turns out that humans have a very strong notion of body image, so if they don't correctly track your arm positions and update them in the game then this causes nausea in a lot of people.

Unfortunately for the 3D film and game industry, it's not the case that simply adding more cues reduces the risk of motion sickness. It turns out that a third-person perspective on a 2D display is one of the minima for the percentage of the population to experience motion sickness. Move to first person, and this gets worse, though it's still a tiny percentage (some people can't play FPS games for more than a few minutes without feeling sick). Add a few more visual cues and you get a lot more people feeling sick. There's obviously a minimum when you get all of the cues right, because otherwise people would spend their entire lives experiencing motion sickness, but so far none of the mainstream 3D systems have found another point that's close to the 2D display. If you're going to develop a first-person game, and you can either develop it for a technology that 99% of humans can use without feeling sick, or spending more money to develop it for a technology that 80% can use, which would you do?

Slashdot Top Deals

In the realm of scientific observation, luck is granted only to those who are prepared. - Louis Pasteur

Working...