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


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

Comment Re: A model can't confirm any hypothesis (Score 1) 109

A model based upon data and able to predict future observations is, well, by definition a demonstration of the validity of a hypothesis.

It strikes me that you may be committing an etymological fallacy, using a definition of the word "model" that doesn't really fit with how scientists use the word.

Comment Re:Cable TV companies = Cable internet companies (Score 1) 149

That may keep them going for a while, but we're probably little more than a decade away from fiber roll out in many areas (even my small town of around 20,000 people is seeing fiber coming soon). Cable's business model is doomed, and even the networks are likely to put a lot more investment in online streaming offerings as they see cable's ability to deliver their product to large numbers of people fade.

I give cable ten, maybe fifteen years at best.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 1) 109

Or we could, you know, reduce pollutants and emissions, rather than hoping that somehow in a just a few generations an immunity develops (hint, it would take a lot more than a few generations to develop communities to pollutants, and in some cases, like say mercury or carbon monoxide, it's hard to imagine any evolutionary pathway that would lead to immunity).

Comment Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena? (Score 1) 56

It's kind of hard to take you seriously, but I'll make an attempt. I rather think I'm wasting my time and would recommend you do some background reading. However, the areas of your apparent ignorance are so broad that I am hard pressed to suggest a starting point.

In the case of a natural monopoly, excessive profits can become quite harmful. I think the obvious solution in the case of a true natural monopoly is careful government regulation and special taxation, with some of the tax revenue being invested in research to break the monopoly. You don't seem to understand the definition in Wikipedia, but it does talk about first mover advantage. There is some confusion there, but it's easier to use Windows as an example because a solution is also obvious.

Imagine that Microsoft were divided into 5 competing companies. Each new company would start with a copy of all of the source code and equal shares of the people and facilities. Each shareholder would get corresponding shares in each of the new companies. Some of the new companies would make good decisions, get more business, and grow. Others would do less well, but the important thing is that the competition would drive stronger improvements in the OS and applications. The Windows platform would continue to exist as a standard, but a public standard rather than a secret one. If the overall pace of innovation increased, then everyone would win. The model would be more like an amoeba family rather than a 'unified' cancer.

Comment Ties to Government? (Score 4, Interesting) 106

Nothing but PR=B$, news at eleven all citizens of a country have ties to their government. They have ties to the government at Federal level, ties to the government at state level and ties to their government at municipal level. Look a whole article about immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... So US spies have immunity when they break other countries laws and are safe from extradition, not just computer crimes but even rape and mass murder and no matter how public those crimes have been those American criminals are still be protected. Even an entire war based on lies, the criminals behind that, are still being protected, hence the desperate bid to corruptly elect another guaranteed not to prosecute high crimes, criminal is being elected. Remember those hacking stories about hacking of state electoral roles and patches to security, now were those patches to fix or to break security and is the electronic fix in. I'd bet a substantial amount of the Russian hacking is actually the CIA and it's private for profit contractors pretending to be Russian, keeps the NSA and FBI off the backs and drives more CIA contractor revenue (NATO command is screwing about in there as well, separate from the US government, collusion between US/UK/German/French corrupt players).

Comment Re:Meh. (Score 4, Insightful) 109

Bullshit. Rich people tend to have far far better health care. The size of your parents' wallet is not genetically heritable, therefore your claim that somehow Darwinism would solve the problem is utter crap. As with all Social Darwinists, you either twist what Darwin was saying, or you just simply don't understand it.

A few points:

1. Cooperation is as much a result of Darwinian selection as competition. Humans are social animals, not solitary hunters. Even Neanderthals appeared to take care of their infirm, for chrissake.
2. You can legally inherit money, but it confers no genetic advantage. A moron can just as easily have a trust fund as a genius.
2a. There is an at least partial caveat to that, in that poor nutrition during the key developmental years that is often found in the poorest societies can in fact stunt cognitive development. But again, that still doesn't mean rich people are genetically superior, it just means good nutrition and health care allows them to reach a sort of maximum of cognitive development that members of poor societies are often deprived of. The same would happen to a baby born in a rich society if it is deprived of protein and calories necessary for development.
3. There may be a genetic component to earning lots of money; in that either intelligence or risk taking behaviors can likely influence a person's ability to earn money, but high intellect and risk taking can also be associated with some potentially deleterious behaviors as well (i.e. links to depression or, in the case of risk takers, to physically or legally dangerous exploits).
4. The wealthier society, the lower the fertility rate, which generally means it isn't the poor societies who are going to be wiped out, but rather the wealthier ones, which is why they end up having to build big walls which they then are forced to open the gates to because to remain economically viable you need to have some way of generating the required 2.1 children per female to at least maintain a stable population over time.
5. As one can see from poorer societies, women can produce a number of offspring even if their average lifespans are considerably less than your average citizen of an industrialized country, so the idea that "Darwinism" (whatever you mean by that) is just going to leave all the nice rich people in place, and all the poor people will drop dead doesn't even make any bloody sense.
6. Social Darwinism has about as much to do with Darwinism/evolutionary biology as horoscopes have to do with astronomy. It was long ago debunked, but remains oddly popular among Libertarians in wealthy countries who either directly or indirectly benefit greatly from the labour of people in poor societies, and who seem to feel that it somehow justifies that pecking order. If Social Darwinism resembles any kind of evolution, it is the Lamarckian evolution that Darwin set about strongly critiquing in his theory.

Comment Re:News Flash! (Score 1) 447

What sacrifice. An astronaut going to Mars in his twenties is very likely to survive quite some time. All high risk efforts will be done by robots, break one, use a spare and another is sent from earth. Sure most travel will be one way but new specialists could be sent as necessary ie damage the spine a volunteer neurologists gets some extra space training and off they go.

So the logistics chain needs to be established. From the Earth to the moon base and from that base to Mars (additional manufacture and resourcing being carried out on the moon).

To be safe is not about being able to come back, it is about how quickly resources and required staffing can be dispatched and arrive. The drive is not to get to Mars but to build a full fledged moon base housing thousands, to enable the rest of the system to be reached from an atmosphere free, low gravity environment, the moon is key for access to the rest of the solar system and the ability to make monthly launches from the moon to Mars. Not rockets but fired at Mars by a large steam cannon, still need engines to slow down, dependant upon time to Mars, quicker trip, much larger engines to slow down (those engines could make a slow trip back though).

So the problem is all about how to shift tons and tons of stuff around the solar system as fast and safely as possible. From there the rest of the galaxy. There is no way faster than gravity tests can be conducted on the earth's surface or even near it (think return trip, aim at the moon, whoops, large crater, better that crater on the moon than on the earth). You need to conquer the system to reach out to the rest of the galaxy. Major Moon base is key.

Comment Re:Refused to hand over "evidence" (Score 1) 82

So would a competing manufacturers pay some one to do this, yes. Would corrupt elements in the supply and in this case return chain, take bad units worth very little and put them back through as brand new units at full price, yes. Will Samsung try to sneak back rebuilt units as new to recover some of the losses, yes.

Reality is, safe bet is, wait for the next note with a user removable battery, the note 7 is a dead loss and to be avoided, you just don't know whether or not you will get stuck with a dud, well, 'er' not a dud, I suppose you want the dud, not the non-dud, the exploding one. The easiest way for Samsung to rebuild the reputation of the Note as a premium machine is to go back to a user removable battery.

Comment Re:don't get your hope up (Score 1) 248

That 100 hour thing, is utterly arbitrary, it really depends on what was being sold. So if the advertising is, buy No Mans Sky and play for 100 hours before getting utterly bored and stop playing the game but if they are marketing infinite interesting game play and do not provide it, than 100 or 200 hours, yep, money back. People playing the game bored shitless for hour on hour hoping to eventually find the interesting part, only to get really pissed off with nothing but empty repetition have good reason to be pissed off and not only should they get a refund, they should be paid for their valuable time lost investing effort in a game that did not reward it, as they claimed it would. So not only the money back, but paid for the time to buy and spend and install the game, as well as the labour they invested in the game ;D.

Comment Re:Clearly Samsung's QA department..... (Score 1) 159

This is exactly why the Samsung failure. Engineers to finite design to achieve warranty life. I year warranty they are designing the machine to last one year (they had to design to max load for that year otherwise too many warranty claims). That finite design for warranty period only, means pushing the envelope of system failure and hence, major screw up every now and again. From our perspective, the stuff we buy, basically breaks down at the end of warranty plus the safety period for harder use.

Want change in this bullshit, than you are going to have to force politicians to legislate specific extended mandatory warranty periods, to save on resource waste and unnecessary pollution generation as well as wasted voter product investment. No warranty should be less than say three years and ten years would be preferable). This would save consumers a huge amount of money, reduce planetary resource consumption and hugely reduce pollution outputs. Want to preserve our human survivable environment than we have to cut the bullshit and start taking serious steps to preserve it in a human survivable condition.

Comment Re:Passing the buck? (Score 2) 120

Of course according to your bullshit logic cloudflare is a fluffy bunny charity and provides it services at a loss. No, they charge for it and they charge more for the service they provide than what it costs them. People use cloud flare to avoid setting up their own 'secure' services, the ability to distribute without disruption, due to local conditions and very local conditions (inside the building). All they do is relocate bandwidth problems away from local services and distribute those loads securely across a broader network and they do it at a profit. The original distributor can do it all themselves and at about the same price, because discount achieved for backbone bandwidth are gobbled up in their profit margins.

For cloudflare to function at the best possible performance level it can not have choke points and the information must simply flow straight through and any attempt to monitor, record, filter, censor, will cripple their function and all their customers will go elsewhere or go back to doing it direct. As always pigopolists lie like there is no tomorrow and pay lobbyists to pay off politicians so those politicians will parrot the lies.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics