Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Comment Not meaningfully different from in-vitro (Score 3, Informative) 194

Yes, a lot of work went in, but ultimately, all of the *significant* genetic material came from two parents. Passing on your mitochondrial DNA doesn't do anything to really shape your offspring (unless your mitochondrial DNA is just *really* messed up). Now if the donor egg somehow had defective Mitocondrial DNA, ok, this is at least somewhat useful.

But pretending this offspring has three equally biological parents is disingenuous.

Comment Lest you forget...the music industry is fine... (Score 1) 304

The music business is doing fine

HOW they are doing fine, I have no idea. I know I sound old, mainly because I am, but I am quite astonished what my nearly-teen daughter listens to. It's not that I don't get it... some of it catchy. But so much of it is just terrible in every way. I pull songs off of youtube for her, mainly because I can then monitor what she listens to and I can look up the lyrics as well. Also, she listens to things like parodies of songs and other things that aren't necessarily under the thumb of the music industry.

The other reason I can't believe they doing fine is because the entertainment industry has never really embraced digital music. If they had done so back in '98, '99, 2000, etc. they would have been able to capitalize on the desire for it. Instead, they fought against it. Just like VCRs, cassettes, CDR, DVDR, etc. They just can't loosen their grip on trying to maintain complete control. This is no different.

And I will say, I do listen to youtube at work, it's easy to just pull up some music. And if there is a particular old album out there that I don't have... it wouldn't be inconceivable to just download it from youtube, rip the audio, and run mp3splt with silence detection to get individual tracks.

Comment Re:Pretty cool (Score 1) 164

For most places and efficient low cost configs, I'd say maybe 30-40/year in energy cost.

The upload bandwidth is killer. The performance of accessing the media is terrible (when I access a local rip, it's super high quality and *instant* seeking, versus streams from netflix and the like.

Comment Re:Bit fields (Score 1) 125

Actually, I'd say it would be more of a nightmare. Here we have the devils we know. In that scenario, it would be hellish even *knowing* what can't handle things.

Every hop in the network not being certain whether the next hop could or could not handle the conversation would be a nightmare in the making.

Comment Re:Bit fields (Score 1) 125

It seems funny, because that *ultimately* is the reality of IPv6.

The difference is that in the above scheme, *knowing* whether a hop in the network could or could not do 'big addresses' would be more difficult. With IPv6, it allows things to be very clearly delineated whether the communication is IPv6 capable or not.

The biggest obstacle to IPv6 was the stubborn resistance to any form of NAT. That IPv6 should be all or nothing. The piece needed to make IPv6-only *clients* possible was carrier grade NAT64. Yes, on the server and as a carrier, you need IPv4 *and* IPv6, but the vast bulk of endpoints can be IPv6-only now, taking the pressure off of IPv4. Of course this would have been nice to do a decade ago instead of the last two years or so, so that new servers could have a more comfortable time getting IPv4.

Comment Re:Crypto? They *removed* that from IPv6... (Score 1) 125

I personally would rather *not* have crypto at the IP or TCP layer. Reason being is that in practical terms, updates *must* be delivered through kernel updates. Given the nature of crypto updates, I'd much rather have librariers in userspace be the channel for updates.

I don't think I need a big conspiracy about AH/ESP. They were really awkward approaches, and largely redundant with higher layer strategies.

The issues with DNS/DNSSEC are more reasonably addressed in the DNS layer. There is a lack of will to tackle that problem, but that's the same lack of will that would make implementing at a lower layer impractical as well.

Comment Re:I manage Internet connections in 148 locations. (Score 1) 125

When I pull up my cell phone ip information, it's IPv6.

Now that there's carrier-grade nat to allow ipv6-only endpoints to speak to ipv4-only hosts, it *finally* is plausible to offer most mobile/residential ipv6-only. So a lot of the people who are ipv6-only are precisely the ones that would never realize it.

For enterprise networks and internal networks, those are ipv4 and likely to stay ipv4-only (which is a bummer for software development, because IPv4/IPv6 agnostic code is still relatively rare, since there's so many subtle bugs trying to use AF_INET6 for both, and it's more complicated to have both AF_INET and AF_INET6 addresses).

Comment Re:acrobat reader dc, for those that want... (Score 1) 17

It's an inefficiency that is very intentional.

The software industry realized that for a lot of their users, they couldn't extract upgrade licenses from customers readily because they had already done *too* good a job. Functionality wise, a lot of people don't need anything newer than Photoshop 6 (released 16 years ago). A lot of people could use Office 97. Of course some things have slowly evolved technology wise that *ultimately makes people need updates and there's some forced updates (e.g. fun incompatibilities in ms office formats), In general though, update revenue became a big uncertainty.

So the solution is to switch to rental models, subscriptions, et al. Licenses that terminate when you stop paying, rather than the 'old' way of transactional purchase that has indefinite usage rights.

Now a software company can much more efficiently milk their userbase for money without really having to figure out meaningful value add beyond what they already do.

Comment Re:How so? (Score 1) 210

You're confusing a diet strategy with physiological facts. Changing your diet can be effective because you feel full with fewer calories and because you can avoid rapid rises in blood glucose. Calorie counting often fails because hunger is a strong drive and people tend to cheat, so they take in more calories than they count (or should).

It's not about tricking your body into feeling full. You touched on it when you said glucose. It's about regulating your hormones. The most effective way to do that is through your diet! I know because I have been doing it for four years. Low-carb, high-fat (saturated), no grains (or grain products), or sugar, NO restrictions or even consideration of calories. I lost 15 lbs in the first month and it has stayed off. (I was only 170) No rigorous exercise plan. Joint pain - gone. Back pain - gone. I am not starving myself, I am not hungry. I am often in a mild state of ketosis, or can get there easily. Without 'punishing' myself. I can fast for 24 hours and feel great. I am telling you, calories are a red herring. They play a role, but if you focus on what is important, you can ignore them.

Stop putting things into quotes that I didn't actually say. I said that exercise "influences hormone levels". That is, the amount of calories you burn off with exercise is not that important; what is important is the improvements in mood and physiological changes it causes.

Exercise is great for you, and does influence hormone levels. But you can lose weight without it, it is not required. You can get healthy without it. Your diet is so much more important than exercise in losing weight and being healthy. I didn't mean that to be me quoting you, it was me quoting the phrase "burn off calories" because that phrase is misleading and very simplistic statement around a complex system. Moreover, it's not necessary! Because people think that you have to exercise heavily to burn burn burn away fat. You don't. The oft prescribed "diet and exercise" rarely works because exercising makes you hungry. (work up an appetite) So you eat more (usually carbs) and that gets stored as fat. It's a never-ending cycle, a battle. It doesn't have to be. All you have to do is retrain your body to not rely on carbs for energy. THEN it will use your fat as energy and you will lose it. It's how we came to be, it's in our genes. It's not starvation, it's not tricks. It's pure and simple science.

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.

Working...