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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Great success! Only 19-39 of 270 failed badly! (Score 1) 372

I merely commited the sin of RTFA; the exact sentence was "Such side effects caused 20 men to drop out of the study and were reported by many others," not external factors. They also put the word monogamous (which, if accurate, addresses your second point; bear in mind the women agreed to the study) where you placed heterosexual. I simply did a (somewhat hasty) reading of what they presented, where I considered what the stated claims look like if the tone is removed or flipped. By contrast your "debunking" directly contradicted the article with supposition.

Comment Great success! Only 19-39 of 270 failed badly! (Score 3, Insightful) 372

There's certainly no reporting bias here - among 270 men in the trials, 11 simply didn't reach the chosen threshold of 1/15th normal sperm count in six months, 8 didn't recover within a year after stopping the treatment, 20 dropped out because of side effects while many more reported them (to the degree they stopped taking on new participants - back in 2011), 4 achieved pregnancies within a year while under the chosen threshold. All durations reported are in "up to" form, and the fertility of their partners was not indicated (around 10% have issues while trying, per womenshealth.gov). Only 66-69 of them (by somebody's rounding) stated they would refuse to ever attempt the method again, "so perhaps the side-effects weren't all that bad after all" according to Alan Pacey (whose connection to the study was left unclear). It's unclear if this was before or after they learned of how well other subjects did. The article also carefully describes the women only as "partners", despite heterosexuality being quite relevant to the study. The journalist went with "safe and effective", quoting "extremely effective" also from Allan Pacey, while not addressing the "need for ... reversible" part. I'm mildly curious where the "safe" came from.

The worst part? Compared to regularly used hormonal treatments for women, this probably is "safe".

Comment Re:Another boondoggle (Score 1) 106

You are, of course, free to invent your own way to make this material and to then release it to the world, open-source style

At which point the airports are, in turn, not able to use it because they're commercial use and the techniques you just (re-)invented are freshly patented (close enough to sue, anyway). Or at least it's expensive to ask a lawyer if they might be, and just in case, there are probably lobbyists ensuring that the insurance companies demand a solution from a specific whitelist of brands. And those, in turn, are why the solutions stay expensive. Oh, by the way, the purpose of the patent system is to release the methods to the world, so feel free to start digging; I'm sure you can find one or two that are expired, unobfuscated, and applicable.. the US patent office alone has only 1994 patents filed on "concrete and collapsible".

Comment Re:I think that they are missing the point (Score 1) 210

While caloric intake is one possible way to force weight loss, it's not the only possibility. Restricting carbohydrate intake alone will reduce insulin production, preventing fat buildup and enabling fat burn. Short term, that leads to faster weight loss. Mid term, either method is about equally effective. Long term, caloric deficits can lead to true starvation. Excessive carbohydrates are a seriously contributing factor in obesity, diabetes, and more (the ketogenic diet was developed as an epilepsy treatment). Probably most relevant in this context, avoiding carbs is a lot easier to sustain as a rule than never eating your fill.

Comment Lightfields capture 4D to observe 3D (Score 2) 46

The trick lies in the fact that the picture is a projection, not the scene. There do exist 3D displays, which are volumetric, but a lightfield display doesn't replicate the objects, only the light passing through the screen. This is just like a hologram (although digital lightfield processing is far from the fidelity of chemical holography). The more commonly advertised "3D" screens approximate the effect for two points that represent your eyes, which breaks down in several ways: The points may be misplaced, such as looking at the screen from anywhere but dead center at the right distance and with the estimated interpupilary distance (yeah, that's not happening, particularly with multiple viewers); this is common for TVs and such. For HMDs and VR, a growing issue is that the points are not points at all; your pupils have a shape, and dynamic optics used to focus (accomodate). That's what these displays are designed to address. A related issue in turn is that cinematographers are used to using blurring effects to suggest focus, which will conflict if you're not looking exactly where you were expected to.

Light field imaging really does operate in 4D; two dimensions of position and two dimensions of angle. Normal stereoscopic imagery means using two cameras, each of which takes 2D angular images (e.g. the pixels represent a direction from the camera), and having them placed separately; this gives you a single step of third dimension, which is intended to exactly match the offset between your eyes. It's only an estimation as eyes have more axis of adjustability, including vergence and accomodation, and the direction of your eyes does affect your interpupilary distance for the same reason a panoramic camera setup needs a depth offsetting gimbal; the front end optics are in front of the rotation axis. Common stereoscopic displays like TVs and cinema have this as one of the less inaccurate tradeoffs, however, as the mere fact they don't know where you are (and there are frequently multiple watchers) means they can't show your perspective (if they did, you would see a wider field if you sat closer). A lightfield camera like a Lytro uses a lens array to distinguish such places on the lens itself. From that data you could focus to render 2D images, but a true lightfield display (like this one from Standford, the microlens projection system from MIT, or the very similar HMD shown by Nvidia) leaves that task to your eye's normal accomodation. Some lightfield systems simply use multiple cameras in an array; a few are designed for 3D and thus only have a linear array. Due to the unsolved problem of video transfer of true 4D lightfields, this is the category most 3D panoramic content falls in, which restricts the user to panning only (no yaw, little tilt, no translation) to avoid serious distortion.

If you look at a stereoscopic image, and move your head a little, you see the scene shearing to make objects further away move the same direction; this effect is because the images shown to your eyes were made for a different perspective. An eye tracking stereoscopic display could avoid this (sadly, the New 3DS does not), and a true light field display would not need to; it already displays different perspectives in different directions. In principle you'd require a capture array the size of your screen, but display prototypes avoid that simply by using CG, and it's also less of a problem for VR than cinema. A common application has been lenticular 3D pictures, which frequently have 5 or more perspectives.

Comment Re: Yep, they were... (Score 1) 369

Even the DMCA has exceptions regarding interoperability, which this falls under, and using a third party peripheral is not a copying act. If you want to stretch it, this is more akin to buying an off-brand gameboy cartridge; but even there copyright wasn't enough for the draconian desires of the maker, which is why every cartridge is forced to display the brand logo on startup. This was because trademark law was more enforceable, but that abuse is invalid in many regions due to the aforementioned interoperability concerns. There are lots of things wrong with DMCA, but trying to equate third party accessories with copying is pretty nasty FUD, not truth.

In Keurig's position, the thing to do would be to remove the defect from newly built machines, publish a tag to be used on unbranded cups, and preferably also make that tag available as a free sticker at retailers for people who're already burnt by the defective machines.

Comment Re:Have they not heard (Score 3, Interesting) 358

They have heard of adblock. In fact, when I specifically requested to pay them so they could pay the content creators without showing me ads, they refused and even mentioned ad blocking. Note my motivation in that sentence; this is actually a feature requested by some of us. This announcement got my hopes up just a bit, but it remains to be seen if it's like the offline watching, which was riddled with strange restrictions, never worked properly, and was quietly removed. I see they're still talking about that in the future tense.

Comment Re:Not much said (Score 1) 137

Thanks for the quote.. it's interesting to note that he's implying that others won't cooperate with them on regulating the 'net. The truth on that claim would be somewhere between them making unreasonable (whether impractical or unpalatable - we've seen what sort of regulation they do on their own) demands, this statement being false, or the "China hopes to" weasel language being key - allowing that they never tried. Not much said indeed.

Comment Re:Write-only code. (Score 1) 757

Neither. The first calls compute() only once per orn, and the second makes the list population clearer (and less error prone). So go for

borbs = [b for b in map(compute, orns) if b > 12]

The map can be replaced with another comprehension or generator expression, but at that point I'd place the filter condition on a separate line to call attention to it. This particular combination is a weakness in the comprehension syntax because the output expression can't be named for use in a condition, so we must nest. Breaking it up in two stages may also be viable.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...