Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:So who can we trust? (Score 1) 384

If you use Windows, I like as a starting point. Strips out the opt-out extras (toolbars, junkware) and gives one installer for as many of their supported programs as you want to include. Also, wikipedia has a decent list of source repositories. But as with anything, when downloading, caveat emptor.

Comment Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (Score 1) 926

I have no idea.

Wait. I thought it was simple? Or maybe accurately modelling the energy balance of complex organisms is too complex to represent with three variables? Going back to something you said before:

People work hard to make it seem complicated and mysterious so that they have an excuse that they can tell themselves.

It think it is more the opposite. People (like you) try to make it seem much less complicated than it actually is so they can look down on and/or make fun of fat people.

Comment Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (Score 1) 926

You do understand that there's a continuum between eating more that you need and becoming fat and not eating enough and starving to death, right?

Yes. You postulated that:

Calories In > Calories Out + Calories Burned

explains the weight gain that has been observed in several species over the last several decades. In the example I cited, Calories In and Calories Burned are stable over time, but body weight is not. Thus, "Calories Out" is the only variable left in your formula and must therefore be responsible for the increasing body weight of the lab animals in question. I asked you to explain what it represents and why it has changed over time. If it's "pretty goddamned simple", it should be no problem for you to explain it.

Comment Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (Score 1) 926

Excellent. Then please explain the similar rise in body weight of lab animals, given that:

"In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities."

Comment Re:Sugar (Score 1) 926

How does that explain the lab animals? From TFA:

"In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities."

Your Face Will Soon Be In Facebook Ads 344

jfruhlinger writes "If you're planning on checking into Starbucks using Facebook Places, your friends may soon see your profile picture in a Facebook ad for Starbucks — and, it goes without saying, you won't be paid a dime. You can't opt out, unless, as Dan Tynan puts it, "studiously avoid clicking "Like" or checking into any place that has a six- or seven-figure ad budget." The ad will also include whatever text you use in your checkin, so Tynan suggests some judicious pranksterism ("Just checked into the Starbucks around the corner and this doppio mocha latte tastes like goat urine")."

Comment Re:Fetus in a bag (Score 1) 246

Yes. Size and gestational age are different categories. But either could be considered a measure of "premature-ness". And pre and post 24 weeks could be considered different categories. The point was, a doctor who "had never known a baby born as prematurely as Lexi survive" hopefully is not the neonatalogist. I guess 24 weeks is still generally considered the threshold, as it was over a decade ago. But as I understand it, that threshold is being pushed more and more. So while younger preemies (who survive) are less common, almost any medical professional should be aware that 26 weeks is not a particularly "rare outlier" as far as preterm babies go.

Comment Re:Fetus in a bag (Score 1) 246

These doctors need to get out more if they are unfamiliar with more premature babies surviving. Lots of 22-25 week gestation babies (that's 15-18 weeks premature) survive, with the record being 21 weeks 5 days gestation. In terms of size, the baby in the article is fairly small at 14 ounces. But the record in that category is 8.6 ounces, with a few other cases under 10, including the previous record holder.

Submission + - UK Xbox FFXIII Ad Banned For Using PS3 Footage (

siliconbits writes: UK Ad watchdog, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), also says that Sony's PlayStation 3 (PS3) games console delivers sharper images than Microsoft's Xbox 360. The ASA came to this decision after it was notified that PS3 footage was used in an advert for the Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XIII.

Submission + - Australia considering iPhone app censorship ( 4

srjh writes: Having raised concerns about "the classification of games playable on mobile telephones", the Australian government has now "put the wheels in motion to address this". Under current Australian legislation, video games sold in the country must pay between $470 and $2040 to have the game classified, and due to the lack of an 18+ rating in Australia, if it is not found to be suitable for a 15-year-old, it is banned outright. This is the fate met by several recent titles, such as Left 4 Dead 2 and Fallout 3. Over 200,000 applications are available for the iPhone, many of them games, and developers have raised concerns about the prohibitive costs involved, with many announcing an intention to drop the Australian market altogether if the plan proceeds. However the current loophole constitutes a loss of millions of dollars in revenue for the government, which is currently attempting to have "refused classification" content such as banned video games blocked at an ISP level.

Submission + - Microsoft reboots two classic PC games (

An anonymous reader writes: Ever since it launched the Xbox, Microsoft has had a fickle relationship with Windows as a gaming platform. On one hand PC gaming is a major driver of hardware and operating system sales, but on the other hand the PC is inherently less secure than the Xbox console, with piracy much more likely to impact sales of a PC title than a console one. Games for Windows Live has been an attempt to bring some of the success of Xbox Live to the PC, and while many games have shipped with support for Games for Windows Live it hasn't exactly been a favourite of PC gamers. After all these half-hearted efforts, the last thing anyone expected was for Microsoft to announce new PC-only reboots of two classic game franchises, Flight Simulator and Age of Empires. But yesterday it did just that, announcing a massively multiplayer version of Age of Empires and a new Flight Simulator called Flight. The big question is whether Microsoft can make Games For Windows Live relevant in a market where Steam has taken hold, or if it's too late.

Submission + - Charged with frauding a robot (

Kanel writes: Most of the transactions in stockmarkets today, are handled by automatic or semi-automatic algorithms, so-called "stock market robots". The norwegian daytraders Larsen and Veiby successfully carried out a form of social engineering against one of these stock market robots and could now face up to six years in jail.

The two daytraders, who worked independently, placed a number of sell and buy orders onto the Oslo Stock Exchange. For many of these orders, a deal was never completed. The police claim that Larsen and Veiby placed these orders to manipulate the stock exchange and fool a robot owned by US trading house Timber Hill. The police is quoted in the newspaper Dagens Næringsliv saying that the 2200 buy and sell orders carried out from november 2007 to march 2008 changed the robots' impression of the price of certain stocks, something that Larsen and Veiby took advantage of this.

It should be mentioned here that while the stock exchange announce an "official" price on stocks, many stock market robots analyze buy and sell orders in real-time, to predict the next official update from the stock exchange and gamble against this.
Larsen and Veiby claim that they did not manipulate the robot or the stock exchange in an unlawful manner. Nor were their buy and sell orders "fake". The daytraders took an economic risk as anyone could have taken them up on their buy and sell offers.

In this man versus machine lawsuit, commentators rally in support of the two daytraders, who got the paltry sum of 67 000 USD out of their social engineering scheme. The main argument in their defence is that the stock market robots are gaming each other in the same manner all the time. Is something legal when an algorithm performs it at lightning speed and illegal when a human plays by the same strategy? The robots of Goldman Sachs earned the company a hundred million dollars by a similar trading on small margins and got away with it, but when two humans bested a robot at its own game, they were sued.

Several commenters see the lawsuit as part of an ongoing fight to keep small players out of the stock market. Large actors on the stock market move their computers closer to the stock exchange, with direct connections to it, so that their algorithms get a millisecond headstart against other traders when a buy or sell order is announced. While this high-tech is the norm, it appears infeasible, according to commenters, to let everyone in on robot trading. There is no way for say a student or an independent trader to design and connect a robot trading algorithm to the stock exchange and play the same field as the big robots. In Germany alone, 200 000 people is reported to have left the trading arena because of the robots and the preferential treatment they get at the stock exchanges.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only perfect science is hind-sight.