Comment Re:authenticity (Score 1) 56
Probably because, as a matter of empirical psychological fact, you would find the latter impossible and the former irresistible.
Comment It is powerful, you don't think about it (Score 4, Insightful) 109
"This makes it really powerful because you just don't think about it". This is a pretty good summary of the way in which companies such as Google make their profit.
These days, it is quite essential to "think about it".
Comment _why's stuff? (Score 1) 525
I'm surprised that nobody has brought up Hackety Hack and Why's (poignant) Guide to Ruby.
Submission + - WHO: mobile phones may cause cancer (cnet.com)
Schiphol writes: A new study by the WHO concludes that mobile phone radiation presents 'carcinogenic hazard'. Is this going to be the new tobacco, then? Can't wait to see the Mad Men season for 2040.
Comment Yes, but... (Score 1) 32
... does it run Linux? No, it does not. Windows only.
Comment Re:Let me ask a "stupid" question (Score 3, Insightful) 318
Seriously? On Slashdot? People still value the pursuit of knowledge over here. I am sure your grandfather can understand that.
Comment An easier question (Score 0, Offtopic) 318
We should concentrate on figuring out whether God likes poutine.
Comment Re:Wrong answers (Score 5, Informative) 674
An explanation of the Toronto gaffe by IBM.
Comment Not just maths (Score 4, Interesting) 680
I wish science in general was considered part of what a learned person has to know. I mean, if you want to pass for an intellectual you have to read your Dante, your Beckett and you at least need to know who Lautreamont was. But, apparently, you can very well get away with thinking that you can suck gravity out of a room the way you suck air, or with not having even heard about string theory. That divorce makes no sense, and it was impossible in the history of ideas till very recently.
And Euler's formula is more beautiful than most poems.
Submission + - 60 years of Hamming codes (cio.com.au)
swandives writes: In 1950 Bell Labs researcher Richard W. Hamming made a discovery that would lay an important foundation for the modern computing and communications industries — coming up with a method for performing computing operations on a large scale without errors. Hamming wrote about how self-checking circuits help eliminate errors in telephone central offices. He speculated the “special codes” he proposed — which became known as Hamming codes — would only need to be applied to systems requiring unattended operation for long periods or “extremely large and tightly integrated” systems where a single failure would incapacitate the entire installation.
Hamming code was the first discovery in an immense field called coding theory. This article looks back on the history of Hamming codes, their applications, and includes interviews with Todd Moon, Professor of electrical and computer engineering at Utah State University and David MacKay, Professor of natural philosophy in the department of Physics at the University of Cambridge and chief scientific adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. An interesting read, about a little-known but fundamental element of information theory.
Hamming code was the first discovery in an immense field called coding theory. This article looks back on the history of Hamming codes, their applications, and includes interviews with Todd Moon, Professor of electrical and computer engineering at Utah State University and David MacKay, Professor of natural philosophy in the department of Physics at the University of Cambridge and chief scientific adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. An interesting read, about a little-known but fundamental element of information theory.
Submission + - Ubuntu Rolling release rumours wrong (h-online.com) 1
ddfall writes: Previously on /. — http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/11/24/1346221/Ubuntu-May-Move-To-Rolling-Releases — This is wrong! Engineering Director of Ubuntu Rick Spencer says "Ubuntu is not changing to a rolling release". He goes on to say, "We are confident that our customers, partners, and the FLOSS ecosystem are well served by our current release cadence. What the article was probably referring to was the possibility of making it easier for developers to use cutting edge versions of certain software packages on Ubuntu. This is a wide-ranging project that we will continue to pursue through our normal planning processes".
Comment Re:You lost me at hello... (Score 1) 116
That's not new. The Foundation for Law and Goverment had such a system in place almost thirty years ago. We've seen rehashed stories in /. before, but really, guys, 30 years?
Comment But (Score 0) 53
If the best expected performance of the new technology is just 5 times better than current technology, is it really worth pursuing it? Current technology is current, as in real. Best expected performance needs to be divided by a correcting factor which is unlikely to be much lower than 5.
Comment Re:Evolution, suckers.... (Score 1) 139
Let me see if I can make my post evolve to a less typoed version:
It makes some sense. The idea is that whenever you have a lot of bacteria reproducing, mutation rates being what they are, benefitial mutations will eventually appear. Chemostats, which are what these reactors will essentially be, have been used to test evolution experimentally in just this way.
Now, the flaw in Niedi's reasoning is that evolution is directed only to better differential reproduction. So, if bacteria reproduce before self-destruction, there will be no environmental pressure to select against this feature.
It makes some sense. The idea is that whenever you have a lot of bacteria reproducing, mutation rates being what they are, benefitial mutations will eventually appear. Chemostats, which are what these reactors will essentially be, have been used to test evolution experimentally in just this way.
Now, the flaw in Niedi's reasoning is that evolution is directed only to better differential reproduction. So, if bacteria reproduce before self-destruction, there will be no environmental pressure to select against this feature.
Comment Re:Evolution, suckers.... (Score 4, Insightful) 139
It makes some sense. The idea is that whenever you have a lot of bacteria reproducing, mutation rates being what they are, benefitial mutations will eventually appear. Something like this has been used to. Chemostats, which are what these things will essentially be, have been used to test evolution experimentally in just this way.
Now, the flaw in Niedi's reasoning is that evolution is directed only be better differential reproduction. So, if bacteria reproduce before self-destruction, there will be no environmental pressure to select against this feature.
Now, the flaw in Niedi's reasoning is that evolution is directed only be better differential reproduction. So, if bacteria reproduce before self-destruction, there will be no environmental pressure to select against this feature.
