Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:Fakes (Score 1) 197

Yes and no.

I saw a counterfied iPad on my last trip to Thailand, but as I "knew" all model types of iPads, I recognized imediatly that it is not an iPad. (It was an Android tablet with Apple Logo etc. on it, made from plastics ... but looked quite convincing on the first glance, but the formfactors etc. were all wrong).

Comment Re: Uh, why? (Score 1) 197

If you think Vista was bad you're not old enough to remember NT 4.0.

I remember the sound system crashing on my Vista laptop, sending a horrible, unstoppable screeching through the speakers. Basically it was an audio snow crash. Yet everything else worked normally; I was able to save my work and shut the system down. And I remember thinking, "that was horrible, but so much less horrible than it could have been."

Comment Re:Good grief (Score 1) 262

>The thesis of this "scientific paper" is basically like a couple of tokers sitting around in their parents' basement saying "DUUUUDE... what if the money in our savings account DOUBLED EVERY YEAR?!???

Again this is not a critique of the paper, it is a critique of tokers sitting around in their parent's basement. There is no substance in your criticism to address, it really is just an expression of your feelings toward the paper's author. Aside from the fact that you're just name-calling, the numerical basis you've used for comparison is just wrong.

Now it so happens I have you at a disadvantage: I've actually read the paper. It's closer the tokers sitting around saying, "How can we achieve a 7% annual compound interest rate sustained over ten years with our portfolio," which is roughly what doubling your money in ten years takes. The authors are talking about what it would take to half carbon emissions which would be a 6.6% reduction each year, and they discuss methods for reducing them, which they break down into near term no-brainer, near-term difficult, and long term speculative. As is usual the further out you go the less concrete and certain you can be. This is normal in economic projections that go twenty or more years out.

Now you may disagree with the specific means proposed, some of which are quite drastic (e.g. attempting to recover external costs through inheritance taxes). But there is nothing inherently irrational about starting with a goal -- zero carbon emissions by 2050 -- then asking what it would take to achieve that. Nor is there anything inherently ridiculous with coming up with the answer that it'll take a mix of things, some of which looking twenty or more years into the future we can't predict yet.

Comment Re:Percentage doesn't matter (Score 1) 148

Oh, I think the percentage bit is significant. It shouldn't be news that they've acknowledged reality; but it's remarkable that their responses is so meaningless.

It makes me wonder whether this is just marketing BS or whether they're really that incoherent about strategy.

Many proprietary software companies have prospered in an era of open source acceptance -- even when very good free software alternatives for their products exists (Microsoft, Oracle). But although we don't tend to think of them that way, they tend to be value-priced. You get a lot of (not necessarily great) software engineering for your $199 Windows license fee.

But the play this game you need scale to amortize development costs over many users. If you have more of a niche product competing against a solid open source competitor is going to be really, really hard. As in SAS charges almost $9000 for a single seat license, and that's good for only a year; thereafter you'll have to fork over thousands of dollars every year. That kind of cash pays for a lot of R training.

Comment Re:Why Fox? (Score 4, Informative) 514

Your examples make no sense.
Americans are to poor to fly overseas to get healthcare they can not afford in their own country.

As I said before, only 'super rich' fly to the USA for treatments. And to be super rich or does not really matter how poor the country is you come from.

The rest of your post makes no sense either. In europe everything is centered around 'health care'. Foreigners flying to europe have by definition no 'health care' but need a private contract with the hospital or doctor they want to seek. Same as if they visit the USA. Why would one fly to Denmark for dental aid? Hu, every country on the world has good affordable dentists, facepalm! I fly to Thailand to fix my teeth, or I could fly to Greece or Tunesia. To combine a vacation with treatment for the same price it would cost me in germany. However: I have a private health insurrance. If
I had a tooth problem, they pay up to $4000 per year. As I take care of my teeth, they never have to pay anything.

The parents of an american friend of mine actually live close to Paris, they are from Camerun. They both get Hepatitis and cancer treatment ... so yes: rich people do fly to Erope to get treatments.
The story is quite funny, as she was with her parents she needed a routine operation. As she is from Camerun and her family has 'residentship status' she would be operated 'for free'. But as she was a director of an american mutual-funds bank, her health insurance insisted she flys back to the states. They refused to pay any followup treatments if anything would go wrong in the hospital in Paris.
So she got a first class flight and an operation in Washington that costed far over $10,000 ... would have costed less than $1000 in Paris (plus stay and food etc. ofc. in both cases)

The USA might have a few specialized institutions that are above European level (in terms of quallity of service), but most certainly not in numbers that are in any way relevant.

The first heart transplant was not done in the US ... you are watching to much Dr. House. Do you know where most US soldiers are treated that get severly wounded somewhere on the world?

Hint: not in the USA ....
Answer: In my country ... should be not be hard to figure which it is.

Comment Re:So backwards... (Score 1) 223

No, there is no flaw.
Perhaps you might check the dictionary what a flaw is.

In case of autonomous cars, e.g. you could do it like a human does, drive slower. Surprisingly, that is exactly what an autonomous car is doing.

So, with better visuals, it would drive slightluy faster than it does without. The limit is likely the slippery of the road and not the vision. So, there is not much to improve ... and there is ni flaw.

The flaw are humans that don't slow down in bad weather conditions.

Slashdot Top Deals

Order and simplification are the first steps toward mastery of a subject -- the actual enemy is the unknown. -- Thomas Mann