Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Doomsday Predictions (Score 1) 565

I'm 61 and I was taught this in school.

This is some very impressive evidence. I'm sure you couldn't be mistaken.

Please cite more than a handful of scientists who actually suggested there would be another ice age back in the 1970s. Otherwise, we're just going to have to disallow your impressive memory of grade school as proof of anything.

And don't forget to schedule that colonoscopy. At your age, it should be done every 5 years. And who knows, you may find that citation.

Comment Re:Distortion on distortion (Score 1) 271

When using fx boxes to emulate other hardware, you always want a high-power, distortion-free system that can reproduce exactly what it is fed. This way, when you employ "fuzzbox v.1.9" or "fender jazzman-ish rev 6", or the former feeding into the latter, they sound like those things, instead of those things plus new grunge.

This is typical for studios; the repro system is pristine. Because you always what to hear what's there, not what's there plus something the end listener won't hear, and because as I said earlier, no general *music* repro system should be operating in a regime where it is adding distortion -- because that sucks.

There are plenty of high-power, low-noise solutions that allow emulation to do exactly what it was designed to do. You just have to be savvy enough to pick them instead of that Marshall stack you always drooled over...

Comment Re:Doomsday Predictions (Score 1) 565

[reason.com]

Read my statement. Now read your response. Do you see any connection?

I said this:

here was never,,,ever a time when more than tiny handful of scientists thought there would be another ice age.

How many of those 18 (count 'em, eighteen!") SPECTACULARLY INCORRECT things scientists said in 1970 include an ice age?

A handful, you say? Speak up, I can't hear you. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: The predictions of a "new ice age" were concoctions of the media, rather than the result of scientific studies:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Now why don't you try to be a little more honest about that "complete list" of ice age predictions? You're old enough to know better than to peddle that shit here and think it'll just fly unchallenged.

Comment Re:IoA (Score 1) 112

Today using 128bit address having the ability to give more IP Addresses than possible in the universe, really make sure that just randomly picking an address probably will not create a duplicate address.

That would be well and fine if most IPv6 addresses didn't have a 64-bit or even 80-bit prefix, identical for everything routable at the endpoint. Then there are DHCP addressing schemes that use the MAC as part of the address, further reducing it.
Sure, it can be planned better, but we're doing our damndest already to use up parts of the IPv6 address space through thoughtless assignments and rules.

Comment Re:Yeah, but... (Score 4, Interesting) 339

Don't forget shell scripts.
I do development in C and many other languages, but I bet that most of the code I write is in posix sh, bash or perl.

Some quite advanced systems are written as scripts. When timing is not essential, it can be a rational choice. And even then, the majority of a system can be written as scripts, with only the timing-critical components being compiled code.

Comment Re:This should be the death of Capcom (Score 1) 117

It's a bit more complicated than that. There's behaviour analysis, pattern analysis ... ok, in the end, it's "bad code". But the analysis does end at known code, it is quite possible to flag code as suspicious that you have not analysed before. There has been a lot of development in the past years, and the detection gets better. It's still too prone to false positives to be part of a scanner, but it is already a very valuable analysis tool.

Comment Re:What about English? (Score 1) 339

Interesting. Since normal people are 'touchy-feely" are you saying computers will never understand normal people?

Understand, no. Faking it with varying degrees of success, yes.

But we don't accept varying degrees of success for machines that perform important tasks. We expect exactly one outcome except when we deliberately add randomness.

Slashdot Top Deals

The reward for working hard is more hard work.

Working...