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

 



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

Comment Re:Also nothing supports it (Score 1) 76

I can play H.265 1080p content on my 3 year old laptop without any issue. VLC barely budges a single core on the cpu. My Nexus 7 2013 can handle H.265 720p files just fine with VLC, but it does hit the CPU really hard. (1080p on it plays audio, but the video is jerky) Almost all ARM chips that were produced in the last year or two support H.265 .

The only thing I have that probably couldn't handle H.265 is a 6 year old smart TV... but, I could easily get a Roku or something for that.

I'd say it won't be long before they switch to H.265. Sure, licenses aren't cheap, but when you factor in the bandwidth savings from the file size reduction, I can't imagine it not being worth it for Netflix to switch. It's just a matter of time, testing, re-encoding, and ensuring customers are ready for the switch. It wasn't that long ago that Netflix re-encoded everything from masters to H.264. They drug their feet on that for quite a while, and they paid for a license for H.264. VP9 isn't that impressive. Maybe the next iteration will be better, but for now H.265 is the best out there.

Comment Re:Ubuntu makes to much decisions for me... (Score 4, Informative) 137

I'm not sure I follow. Ubuntu will let you install the proprietary drivers and will let you file bug reports for issues, but if the close-sourced driver is found to be the culprit, they'll refer you to AMD... because AMD is the only one with the source code, and thus the only ones able to help you fix the bug. That's about as much support as one could ask for.

The open source drivers are the default install, but you certainly can replace them with the proprietary closed source drivers.

Here's the How To from Ubuntu for the most recent 16.04 LTS:
https://help.ubuntu.com/commun...

As for the open vs closed source quality, recent benchmarks show that the MESA 13 drivers are pretty close to the closed source ones for most chipsets, but it's still a tiny bit high on the latency. I doubt you'll ever get parity until/unless AMD phased out the closed source drivers by fully opening the source code. There's probably some things in there they license and/or don't care to share with competitors, though.

Comment Re:Nope (Score 3, Insightful) 468

Economics has never had to deal with this level of AI before, and Milton Friedman died 10 years ago, so I doubt he had much to say on the topic.

In a world where robots with AI can do just about every blue collar and almost all white collar work better, faster, and cheaper -- what do you propose? AI is even replacing most clerical work and has begun replacing tattoo artists and surgeons.

Seriously, who would hire a human being to do any job if they can have a one-time-purchase AI to do the same job that is literally superior in every way?

Ask the rust-belt about all their manufacturing jobs that went to Mexico after NAFTA and to China as well... but, which now are moving from China to Ethiopia or are being replaced by robots. That's right -- China has been cutting thousands of jobs and replacing them with robots... b/c it's cheaper than even the pittance they paid the Chinese labor.

Have a look at the 2 million 18-wheeler driver jobs and the additional 5 million delivery/taxi jobs in the USA. When vehicles become fully self-driving, that's 7 million jobs gone over the course of just a few years to replace the drivers. It'd be one thing if people had time to prepare, to learn new skills, and to find a new job that a robot with AI wouldn't threaten. Thing is, the AI is taking over jobs in all fields. There's even a robot pharmacist dispenser at my local hospital -- sure, it's stocked by a real pharmacist, but it basically does their job and multiple pharmacy tech jobs in one.

The Industrial Revolution made it so that people could do more work. The Information Age made it so that people could do more work and do so globally instead of just locally. The AI Revolution will make it so that few people can find work... b/c the AI is made to REPLACE people, not to help them do more work. Sure, those displaced workers could try to find work in an area that an AI just can't do. But what would that be? Software coding?

No matter the subject, as AI grows, its capabilities will become exponential. There's no job that's truly safe from its encroachment.

Comment Re:Communism (Score 5, Interesting) 134

This is an interesting argument. On the one hand, getting something for free can lead to laziness and complacency. Yet, somehow we let children go for nearly 18 years sometimes without earning a paycheck. Oh, sure -- some get an allowance for chores or get a paper route -- some even flip burgers in their teens, but really it's not enough to live on. It's as if we let their wealthier parents take care of all their basic needs, but they can go out and earn discretionary income if they're motivated enough! Why, it's pure Leninist Communism on the family-scale!

Or, you know. Maybe in a world where human physical labor is obsolete and even many white collar jobs are now obsolete, maybe we should prepare for a world where just about every job is obsolete, and the rich, wealthy owners of the land and corporations can afford to use the immense wealth built on robot labor and Artificial Intelligence to let everyone have their basic needs tended to with a tiny bit of discretionary money to buy their products so that the whole system doesn't collapse under its own weight. Because if you have an AI/robot workforce and so does every other company on the planet, no one has a real paycheck to buy products, so the economy collapses and your AI/robot infrastructure crumbles b/c it's useless to make things for people that can't afford your products.

Hyperbole? Nope. China is replacing their human workforce with robots. Read that again and let it sink in a bit. China, where workers are paid less per year than many Americans make in a week has decided to replace thousands upon thousands of human beings with robots... b/c it's cheaper. Self-driving cars are going to be a thing in the next 5 to 10 years -- so much for those 2 Million American trucking jobs plus another few million taxi drivers... and Uber/Lyft. I've seen whole departments shelled out to the core to be replaced with automated systems. The other day, I saw a robot tattoo artist! Seriously, it scans your body, preps the needle, and will do a complete sitting for a tattoo given the design. There is no job that's safe. Legal Clerks are being replaced with automation. Nurses, pharmacists. Even surgeons. The more creative and nuanced the job, the longer the hold-out... but it's coming. The information age made globalization possible, but the AI age will make global massive joblessness a reality -- Who would hire a human being if an AI and/or robot could do the job cheaper, faster, for longer, and more reliably?!?!? Most kiosks cost around $30K -- and McDonald's is rolling those out nation-wide to replace people that used to take your order (or at least prevent them from having to hire more than a couple people capable of taking your order per site) Many auto-manufacturing robots are cheaper than union labor. In the USA, we have union workers sitting in seats on robot arms and the arm moves the worker to the place for them to screw the bolt in. In foreign plants... that human is replaced by a robot hand that does the job better. How long before the unions break down and let the USA plants do the same?

Comment Re:Kalman filter (Score 1) 110

This. So much this. I don't know about the EU, but when NASA builds spacecraft, it tends to put in multiple redundancies where it can and add a little logic to determine if and when a sensor fails given other data. If you're going to send up a multi-million dollar craft for a project that will last months, have a backup plan for each and every thing that could possibly go wrong so long as it doesn't significantly add to the expense.

We know that rocket scientists can fire an object into orbit and hit a spot only a few meters wide on Mars -- while the Earth and Mars are both in motion -- rotation and revolution! I bet there's even a checklist as to when each system should come online and be deployed. If a sensor says "hey, we're on the ground or very near it!" when you're still 2 or 3 miles up... and you KNOW there hasn't been enough time for descent, maybe ignore that sensor and fire the descent engines based upon other data. Maybe even include a second sensor that works on different principles -- or fire a laser at the ground and have an optical sensor figure out the altitude from the reflected light. Maybe even throw down a reverse GPS system for Mars... some planetary markers so that orbital and landing craft can triangulate their location and proximity to the ground in real time.

Comment Re:SO... (Score 1) 333

I'm all for fining Wal-Mart IF their store-brand (which they themselves manufacture) is guilty of not including aloe. Going after retailers for selling what they believed to be perfectly good products is insane, though. You don't sue a retailer for carrying a bad product unless they were negligent in the event of a recall. What you prescribe would easily put lots of retailers out of business very quickly by making them personally responsible for the content of every product they sell.

You presume that every retailer could investigate each product at the molecular level -- and every batch, no doubt! -- to ensure quality. No, that's the manufacturer's responsibility! You also assume that just any retailer could take on a huge financial penalty and then simply get immediately reimbursed by a manufacturer -- yeah, right. Litigation can take years -- or even decades with appeals. They may not survive the judgement and legal fees before they're reimbursed.

Government sets regulations for products, retailers are just middle-men. If a product is bad, you go after the manufacturer. It's the manufacturer's responsibility to deliver what was expected and to have a reasonable return policy and warranty for goods. Don't buy crap from brands you don't trust! If it's a quality brand, they won't want to hurt their brand by being involved with scandals like fraudulent goods. I imagine if Nike sold asbestos shoes, they'd be out the class action lawsuit money and a great deal more for damaging their brand. It's not Wal-Mart, Payless, Footlocker, etc.'s fault if Nike uses asbestos instead of memory foam or polyester.

As for your domestic argument... yeah... good luck with that with ALOE VERA. The plant doesn't grow well enough for agricultural production anywhere in the USA outside of parts of Arizona and southern Texas. Even there, it's considered to be not a great use of the land for the expense. Much of it is grown overseas and in Mexico. It's generally processed close to where it's grown for many reasons, but you're generally going to be working with a foreign distributor that slapped a label on the farm's aloe vera juice no matter what.

As an aside, we don't even know what constitutes "real" aloe vera gel as an ingredient. The article mentions 3 possible ingredients (mostly sugars/starches), but there's nothing that says what's in the bottle didn't actually come from an aloe vera plant but had those sugars removed as part of the refinement process! Did anyone do a mass spec analysis of all the chemicals in it to see what WAS really in there? Maybe it's fake... maybe it's just been refined. This may be similar to arguments against calling something chocolate because it has no cocoa fat solids, but instead has oils and corn syrup, but it still has organic bits that came from the cocoa plant and still tastes similar to other chocolates.

Comment Re: Finally (Score 3, Interesting) 540

Creative solutions have to be worth the cost of implementing, and in most environments, corporations are huge slow-moving behemoths that get around to innovative solutions once every few months or years. Yay! You found a way to increase productivity by 1%. We would have to change all the manuals, rules of procedures, and disseminate the new method to everyone after we hold a few focus groups and make sure there's absolutely no downside to using this solution over our tried and true method... and maybe change it. Sure, let's pay you $60K+ a year to come up with an innovative solution once in a blue moon rather than just train the robots to do it the old way and maybe put that money towards a hardware/software upgrade for the robots which might boost them 20% instead of your crappy 1% boost.

Point is, robots will eventually be able to do all manual labor, and with the coming AI revolution, most sem-skilled and skilled labor, too. Most businesses fall into manufacturing (all robots) or service industries (all AI and robots) with very few real jobs that couldn't be automated with AI. Even most surgeons can be replaced with a competent AI.

Think of a job. Now ask why that job can't be replaced with an entity that is capable of physically doing things better, faster, cheaper, and longer than a human being and with the current AI revolution and quantum computing can also match the mental capabilities of most humans as well.

Drivers, pilots, delivery people, wait staff, cooking staff, assembly line workers, auto repair workers, clerks, tailors, nurses, pharmacists... so many jobs can be automated. Humans will be relegated to extremely complicated, creative, and/or niche work. Even fully autonomous robot surgeons will be able to do most routine surgeries.

I'm thinking.... plumber, carpenter, plastic surgeon, ER surgeon, brain surgeon, lawyer, judge, politician, actor, musician, writer, software coder, etc will stay largely human jobs for the foreseeable future, but their days are numbered, too. There is AI software that can analyze MRIs better than humans, and it's not much of a step to think it'd be able to choose a surgery option and perform it as well. There are AI law clerks as well. Recently, an AI teacher's assistant was given extremely high marks as the best TA who responded very quickly with helpful suggestions and answers at all hours. The students had no idea the TA was an automated system. Human jobs are often highly repetitive -- we're doomed, bro.

Comment Re:Finally (Score 2) 540

It's not silly. It's inevitable. Previous industrial and tech revolutions helped people to do things better/faster and sometimes replaced people in jobs. This one will replace ALL manual labor. Beyond that, it'll replace many office jobs, and eventually even high skilled jobs.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to see the writing on the wall. Everything a human can do physically at work can be done faster, better, and cheaper with a robot. Sooner or later, AI will be able to do everything a human is mentally capable of as well -- and better, faster, cheaper, for longer, etc. It'll take time, but we're on the cusp of humanity being completely obsolete in the workforce. Why pay a human being a salary when you can purchase what's essentially a slave labor robot force? And even buy robots to service the other robots?

Initially, we'll lose most of the rest of factory jobs (China is already replacing its workforce with robots in factories), then we'll lose most service jobs, then we'll lose delivery and taxi driving jobs, followed by doctors, lawyers, and one day possibly even writers, software coders, and engineers.

The pace of technology is rapidly increasing -- far faster than humans will be able to find niche jobs that exploit their creative talents which AI hasn't yet been able to master. Ever increasing human population, ever faster decreasing number of viable jobs. Doom. Doooooom without universal income.

Comment Re:What we need (Score 1) 174

Because it's been tried and PC gamers had a serious edge over console gamers. Think about it -- crappy console joysticks and various size TVs vs keyboards with lots of buttons, options, macros, and a mouse with multiple buttons -- not to mention the possible screen setups like multi-monitors.

For PVP, Starcraft console players would be smoked by PC players.

Also, the head's up display (HUD) is usually very different for console vs pc. And PC players have options for outside-game chat and voice programs that let teams coordinate or stealthily share info better.

Comment Re:Let me know when ... (Score 1) 340

I think you missed the point. Whoosh. GP is agreeing storage is not an issue.

He's saying capacity and actual output are apples and oranges, and it's not storage that's the problem. I can build a wind turbine with the capacity for so many megawatts, but if it's only windy on Thursdays and idle on the other 6 days, my output is only 1/7th my capacity. Wind and solar have a certain maximum expected capacity, but they rarely hit that except at peak times -- either when wind picks up at certain times of day or when the sun is perfectly overhead on a sunny day.

Capacity does not equal output for those renewables while a coal or nuclear plant can be worked at full capacity so that its capacity = its output constantly if that were desirable. (In the real world, most plants have more than one reactor/furnace and will fire up and shut down according to need and wouldn't necessarily run at full capacity either, though.)

Comment Re:Who needs them anyway (Score 1) 330

It's... really a misnomer to even call it a smartwatch as that's not its intended use-case. It's really a wrist-mounted mini-phone/tablet that has a limited use-case.

1) The Chinese love them -- because you can tap and draw on their surface while talking to people of different dialects to communicate better

2) Bartenders and other busy people who don't have hands free to pull out their phones every time they ring (assuming they can hear or feel them vibrate).

3) Joggers and other athletes on the go. You don't have to take your phone with you - the Apple watch will take calls without the phone nearby.

Don't think of them as watches... no one that owns one does. I've met a few people that own them, and they love them. I won't get one because I don't have a reasonable use-case for the expense, but I can see how they're popular with those who can really put them to good use.

Comment Re:Great, but (Score 3, Informative) 197

I think he's referring to the isoflavones in soybeans which mimic estrogen and are possibly linked to multiple hormone-related health issues.

While everything you eat affects your body in some way or another, consuming isoflavones in sufficient quantities which convert into phytoestrogensis a bad idea as hormone balance is especially sensitive to such consumption... well... for men anyway. For post-menopausal women, there have been beneficial effects in studies that show it's similar to taking low-dose hormone-replacement therapies -- ie estrogen pills. There's also a theory that increased soy products have aided in increased breast sizes, early puberty, and low sperm counts... though it's far from proven.

The National Institute of Health states results from various studies are mixed and that it supports further study, yet cautions women who are at high risk of breast or cervical cancer from eating lots of soy.

https://nccih.nih.gov/health/s...

Comment Re:Not Causal (Score 1) 311

Eh, they could have put in a second lightning port, but that would be very un-Apple-like (this is the same company that refused to have 2-button mice for a while).

Also, it wouldn't have solved the real problem to add something back after they removed the jack. The issue wasn't just space, but interference between parts. Apple could have miniaturized the analog audio jack further, but the interference would have remained. Supporting analog audio was a losing battle from the beginning when blutooth and lightning both support digital audio output. If Apple could get away with it, they'd remove the lightning jack as well -- wireless power, audio, everything. In fact, I'm sure that's their ultimate goal. I expect the Iphone XII to be completely wireless -- though with a proprietary optical sensor/receiver to work with car stereos and beats audio, of course!

https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnp...

Comment Re:Hulu is no longer consumer friendly (Score 1) 111

This.

I quit using it several weeks ago when the new watchlist replaced my queue. Hulu only had 2 shows I still watched sem-regularly anyway, and I wasn't going to bother with the watchlist. I thought, perhaps with the hatred of the feature and loss of viewers, they'd wise up -- but no. Apparently my eyeballs aren't worth the money they make from targeted advertising towards me vs the bandwidth cost to serve me. That's fine.

Most of what I watch, I have to visit various websites directly anyway -- like syfy.com for 12 monkeys... which was never available on Hulu.

Now we wait until Hulu becomes completely irrelevant. The owners have tried to sell it several times, but no one was stupid enough to buy the middle-man distribution network from the content providers. Why would anyone purchase it? So they could then have to negotiate pricing for everything from the very people they bought the company from? lol. Hulu Plus was the owners' idea to monetize it further... and it was clear that they went kicking and screaming towards no commercials (as their ability to target customers for commercials was worth a lot of money)... and they HAD to kill off the free version as anyone could see the sales pitches all over every page and the intentional hiding of the free content you had to search for. Shoving the freebie stuff over to Yahoo for a fee made sense... b/c now the free stuff is on a completely different site that the owners hope you'll never visit.

Slashdot Top Deals

Overflow on /dev/null, please empty the bit bucket.

Working...