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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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: Macintosh doesn't have apps! (Score 1) 66

The first version of the Macintosh System software had folders, just not folders within folders (due to a file system limitation that was swiftly fixed).

DAs were kind of like TSRs. But I don't remember stickies being among them until well into System 7, at which point they were ordinary applications.

Comment Re:Math is about right (Score 1) 55

My favorite part of my naivety is when people tell me I don't see what I can plainly see.

Well, first it's of course a situation of diminishing returns. Our eyes aren't getting any better, so there is a limit of where it's "good enough".

And of course there's a difference between SD and HD. It's clear here in PAL-land even though we had significantly better resolution than NTSC from the get go. But when it comes to 1080p I'm not convinced that better resolution is the next useful step. I'd much rather see higher refresh rates (60Hz makes a difference), and less compression. More resolution with more vissible compression artefacts from even more cramming into the available bandwidth, isn't something I'm looking forward to.

P.S. And I know of no married man that's allowed to sit close enough to the TV to take full advantage of 1080p, let alone 2k or 4k. If you buy a bigger set, the sofa get's moved. Every time. :-)

Comment Re:It's finally becoming a well know "secret"... (Score 1) 329

Yepp. The very best people I have ever met where still in university. They never left...

And I worked with some top notch people in industry, people with internationally recognised names. But they were after all, with the odd exception, not quite in the same league as the best in university. They were generally much better, and there were many more of them as well. I guess that's why they gravitate there.

Comment Re:and that would be a bad thing... because? (Score 1) 620

I find it interesting that many pooh-poohers have suddenly switched from no, not true, not happening to nothing can be done. I mean, this is something like the fourth or fifth one in this thread, whereas even a week ago this was an unusual response. Was there a focus group somewhere that said this is more effective? Didn't your marketing people think this message is a bit too dark for the average mark?

No, its simply that everyone is following more or less the same script. But as they're not coordinated completely, they're slightly out of sync.

It's straight from the playbook of the tobacco lobby. Seem like you're having a debate, but it's just a carefully scripted set of talking points designed to give as little ground as possible and only when you have to, while wearing your opponent out. Much like a military "defence in depth" is. It's the same principle.

Comment Re:What is his reasoning? (Score 1) 19

"So what are MY qualifications for coming to those conclusions? For one, I can read."

Yeah, that makes you more qualified than someone with 3 years of med school and years as an intern and years or decades in medical practice.

Seriously, that does NOT make you qualified to read the results and draw conclusions. I used to teach in a psych hospital and, later, in other treatment settings. "I can read" was NOT enough to make it possible for me to diagnose illnesses or to second guess the psychiatrists or social workers with degrees and postgraduate degrees in fields I only minored in.

However, that experience and the classes I took did teach me how to spot someone who was willfully blind to seeing when they were a good example of the Dunning Kruger Effect and thought they knew more than the experts because they didn't know enough to know when they were out of their depth.

You can go on, but it's clear you're looking more for justification here and for people to tell you that you're right (which means you have doubt you don't want to admit to) than you are looking for answers. You're being reckless with your own body. It's possible it might work for a short while, then get worse, or might actually work. If it works, it's due to luck, not due to what you perceive as your intelligence being better than the doctor's experience and education.

I'm out of here - but I'm sure, even knowing I won't come back, you'll need to comment with a long list of reasons of why I, and everyone else here, and your doctors, and the world, is wrong and you, for some reason, are the only one who is right.

Comment Re:What is his reasoning? (Score 1) 19

1) You state, in the original post, "It's only after another doctor ordered additional tests," yet you reply here and say, 'First, there was no "other doctor who recommended higher doses."' Can you clarify this?

2) You spend a lot of time talking about the "Women's Health Initiative." Why don't you answer my other questions? You've had multiple suggestions of trying another doctor. I asked why you didn't. So that comes back to, "Why are you sticking with this doctor if he's a problem?"

3) Sorry, but menopause IS natural. It happens without medication causing it. Maybe it's only three species that experience it, but it is a natural result of aging.

4) You are interpreting results and coming to conclusions and debating with a qualified MD. You are making strong claims, especially now that you're saying there is no other MD in the picture. (Your original post stated there was someone who ordered tests.) So what are your qualifications to make these conclusions?

Comment What is his reasoning? (Score 1) 19

It would help if you said what his reasoning was for the lower levels. Is there a chance of cancer or other issues developing? Why are you still with him instead of seeing the other doctor who recommended higher doses? And did the other doctor give any reason why the first one might go with lower doses?

Comment Re:A completely unaccountable governing body (Score 1) 667

How can Britain be getting 2/3 off and still paying more money than every other country bar Germany?

Because it's one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and currently the fifth largest economy. Also you're not "paying more money than every country bar Germany". In one measure you're third, but correcting for GNI you're in ninth place, after Belgium, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Luxenbourg, and frigging Italy. The latest of which has an economy in shit state.

So you're only paying a large sum, in absolute terms because you're a large country. One would expect a large country to pay more. Corrected for the size of you're economy, you're not in the top five, and just barely squeeze in the top ten.

And yes, the UK rebate is a thing. Most definitely.

Comment Re:30-44 is old? (Score 1) 153

I have no idea how old you are, but it does not matter. When you were young there were people complaining about the feckless youth of that day. Heck, archeologists have found clay tablets with such rants.

The problem with that argument is that it's always right.

By that token nothing could ever take a turn for the worse, as someone of age will point it out, and your argument will come into play.

OTOH my kids don't learn the rules of the language (not English, but we have a grammar also), they don't learn their multiplication tables, and they don't study long division any more.

As far as I can tell, this is not counter balanced by learning something else it its stead. This is also born out by our slumping ranking in e.g. the Pisa studies. (Or the diagnostic maths test all engineering students have taken at my Alma mater for the last close to forty years.)

So yes, I'm old, and kids today can't do X worth a damn, but in many areas my judgement is supported by international studies and comparisons. Kids today do a lot worse in many respects/subjects than we did. Demonstrably so.

Comment Re:Republicans are anti-science (Score 1) 649

Anyone telling you radio waves are proven safe is a fucking idiot, including you. Radio waves have been studied until recently for health effects, and the studies so far have shown a mix of results. The only people who think it's been "proven" safe.. are fucking idiots, like you.

Bzzt. Nothing is of course ever "proven" safe. You can't in the real world prove the null hypothesis. The best you can do is asymptotically approach it.

Now, "radio waves" are of course many different things, so they can't be "proven safe" anyhow. If you stick your head in the micro wave oven you'll manage to hurt yourself seriously using "radio waves", so of course there is EM-radiation in certain bands with certain power that are unsafe. Goes almost without saying.

What people typically mean though is the question of whether there is any biological effect appart from heating when being exposed to low power radiation in the low GHz range from e.g. cell phones.

And there the science is pretty clear, i.e. there is no "mix of results". Yes there have been single studies that claim to show one thing or another, but that's true in any biological research, when revisited either the protocol is unrealistic, there have been errors or the effect can't be reproduced. So we haven't found any real effect, we don't have any theory or model that could explain it if we found it (i.e. there's no "smoke" to make us go searching for a fire to begin with) and we don't see anything epidemiologically either. And we've being doing these phones for a couple of decades now at a grand scale, so they should have shown up by now.

So while we can't say that it's "safe" we can with some confidence say that if there is an effect its so small as to be completely dominated by other effects, from a risk standpoint that is. Your inattentiveness with increased risk (to take one example) probably completely swamps any risk from EM.

Comment Re:As intended (Score 1) 102

There are a lot of things to dislike about Unions. But thinking you can stand up as a single individual and negotiate on an even footing with an organization which is stocked with cash, "Human Resources", lawyers, and the patience to starve you out is pitiably naive.

Yes, the simplest of game theoretic economic analysis shows that you as an individual employee cannot "negotiate" with your employer. Even for very small companies.

Say that your boss has ten employees. So you go to negotiate. The only thing when it comes down to brass tacks you can negotiate with is walking away. I.e. quitting. That means that your boss will lose 10% of their productivity, while you will lose 100% of your income stream.

That's not even close to equal. Your risk and hassle is much greater in that situation than that of your counterpart and any negotiation of course reflects that basic truth.

So as an independent contractor with many diverse income streams your of course much better off, and that's why law often reflects that, in that if you "contract" but only have one client for long periods of time, then you are an employee and should be entitled to all benefits thereof. Benefits that have been collectively bargained (even through the political system) as its only when ten of you threaten to quit working together that the situation above balances out.

Comment Re:Wrong focus. (Score 1) 244

Well, judging from their tactics in "fighting terrorism", they would produce child pornography themselves, if they legally could. They have been producing "terrorists" for a while now.

Yes. And I was troubled by what seemed like ineptitude in addition to all other moral problems that that approach entails.

But then I dug a bit deeper and found Al Queda training material that explicitly warned would be home made jihadists from seeking like minded and forming a cell with the motivation that any like minded you find will most likely be law enforcement or an informant.

That puts the tactic of trying to trap everyone and his brother and doing so very publicly in another, more effective light. While the moral and ethical problems with such an approach remain, it suddenly looks both effective and down right sneaky. Denying your enemy the well known effectiveness of organising and acting in a group, having him commit his forces piecemeal is good for your effort, and hinders his. (Its not for nothing that the military always fight in teams or groups, and almost all of the training is devoted to how to work as a team and part of a team.)

From that perspective you can almost see the powers that be thinking that finding and stopping "black swan" self radicalised terrorists is almost impossible, so the second best thing is to limit their effectiveness by denying them the advantage of organising. And this is something that has been borne out in e.g. in France. The Charlie Hebdo terrorists were brothers, and hence difficult to isolate with such a strategy. They'll trust each other implicitly. The other organised attacks were by groups that had been put together and trained abroad. Those are more dangerous but also much more vulnerable to traditional police and intelligence efforts (even though they obviously failed here).

So, from that perspective, i.e. pure effectiveness without trying western sensibilities too much (they even follow established law and everything), there could be something well thought out behind this approach. And Al Queda and its ilk has obviously taken notice themselves, so whether thought out in advanced and executed, or just a haphazard happy accident, it has had effect.

And isn't that a scary thought? They may not be wholly incompetent, but actually good at their jobs... :-)

Comment Re: Celcius to Fahrenheit converter failed? (Score 1) 162

And who said you couldn't have a reasoned and polite conversation on Slashdot anymore! :-)

Yes, much of it is arbitrary, and even in SI-land we do cheat from time to time with specialised units for special purposes; I still hear about the odd Angstrom, even though its on the way out.

However, I do prefer a system where the conversion factor is almost always "ten" rather than arbitrary and any "fudging" is hidden in the constants that you're not getting rid of anyway. (And no having more divisors in your unit itself doesn't make it easier to build a kitchen. That's why the standard European kitchen module is 600mm...)

But of course using one system is vastly preferable. I shudder to think if you had your own imperial units for all things electrical as well... That would be worse, even though the Henry and Coulomb are awkwardly large.

Slashdot Top Deals

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan

Working...