Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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 Move for jobs... (Score 1) 491

I don't see why there should be a positive correlation between being less wealthy and moving less. In fact, poverty is often the driving force behind moving to or within the US. Think about okies during the great depression, Irish during the potato famine, etc.

The current resistance to moving is surprising since some areas of the US have significantly more economic opportunities than others, but fewer people are moving to take advantage of them. (That said, there is still a fair number of people who move.) I hate to blame it on "kids these days!", but there is a legitimate case that we're kind of losing our immigrant drive that brought the US success in the first place. It makes me think that we need more immigrants...

Comment What shit? (Score 2) 1560

Exactly what shit was she proposing to start?

The quote you're relying on is super weak:

As President, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic, and military responses.

"Military responses" can mean anything. The military has cyber-warfare capability, so a "military response" could simply be hacking them back. Supposedly, the email hacks were by the Russian _military_ intelligence service, in which case Clinton was proposing a military response to a military action. That's pretty reasonable. Do you seriously think she was planning a conventional military response to cyberattacks?

I don't see the evidence that she tried to *start* shit. I see an excellent case that she tried to *respond* to shit, and maybe it wouldn't be a good response (no way of knowing now), but not responding makes you a more appealing target.

I might add that the current president is also threatening to "start shit with an ICBM and submarine possessing nuclear power". After all, on an international stage, the amount of people for whom shit can get ruined, and the degree to which it can get ruined, is too horrifying to allow him a chance to do so. Don't sleep too easy.

Comment These methods were hoped to be useful in general (Score 1) 169

But that logic only makes sense if microprocessors and brains were similar enough that comparable methods could be used to attempt to understand them. But that isn't true.

Yes, there's no guarantee that the methods that work on the brain also have to work on microprocessors. However, there's also no guarantee that they won't work in both cases. There are many methods/observations that are so generally useful that they apply to a huge range of problems. This is important because there's no guarantee that methods that work on one part of the brain also work on another part of the brain. Maybe the part of the brain responsible for facial recognition and the part of the brain that controls your muscles are as different as horses and tractors?

However, the real issue is that we don't even know which methods work on any part of the brain! As far as I can tell, the methods used to study the brain are basically just shots in the dark. So, we have chosen methods that we hope to be generally useful. Sure, they kind of make sense to apply to brains, but I know of no proof they are really useful. They certainly haven't explained how the brain works yet! Furthermore, before this paper was published, these general methods appeared to make about as much sense for microprocessors as they do on the brain.

So the point of this article is this: the methods we have to study the brain are just shots in the dark; we don't know if they work. So let's try another shot in the dark to see if these methods work on a known system. Since we are assuming that these methods are useful in a wide range of situations, the fact that the methods are total failures on a 6502 should indicate that the methods aren't as generally useful as we hoped.

Comment Re:lawsuit incoming... (Score 2) 179

But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids? Seems unfair and discriminatory against them, in that they don't get this 20 week PAID BENEFIT...?

Yeah, I'm sick of this kind of discrimination! It's everywhere! Why should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids?!? Why are there tax credits and deductions only available to parents!?! Why are babies allowed to scream on aircraft but I'm not allowed to??? Discrimination! Discrimination! Discrimination!

Comment I doubt he'd dump on Trump (Score 3, Interesting) 315

I'm sure if he had dirt on Trump he'd release it also.

At one time, I would have agreed with you. However, it's becoming clear that Assange is not simply freeing information; he's playing politics -- possibly in hopes of a Trump pardon. That's not a far-fetched goal. Assange's standing among conservatives has improved greatly since he started dumping on Clinton. Take the example of Fox News anchor (and Trump lapdog) Sean Hannity. In 2010, he was calling for Assange's head and castigating Obama for not taking out wikileaks. Now, Hannity wants Assange to go free. (Source) So, if Assange had dirt on Trump, I highly doubt that Assange would release it. He wouldn't want to alienate his most powerful audience.

Comment More like 4.5% of the US is wilderness (Score 1) 150

The United States government owns 47 percent of all land in the West. (That's about 1/4th of our country that is, essentially, wilderness.)

Could you explain the logic of "It's owned by the government, therefore it's wilderness"? A lot of federally-owned area is used for cattle grazing, logging, indian reservations, recreation, man-made bodies of water, military facilities, etc.

The federal government does have designated wildernesses, but they form only about 4.5% of the US land mass. (FWIW, over half of the designated wilderness is in Alaska.) Of course, the government's definition of wilderness is not the same as the definition in TFA, but assuming that 25% of the US landmass is wilderness by any reasonable definition is absurd.

Comment Re:Shouldn't have sold XScale... (Score 1) 81

I agree with many things in your post, but I think that one of your important claims is wrong, and that weakens your argument significantly and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Intel's situation:

At the time no one was asking for server class ARM chips (which is basically what XScale was).

XScale was not a server class ARM chip. StrongARM was designed from the beginning for the embedded market. XScale was being used in BlackBerry and Palm handheld devices at the time Intel got rid of XScale. (Example from 2005. There are many more examples if you want to google around.)

So, Intel was already in the mobile game, and it decided to quit it right as it was taking off. That fact remains regardless off your points about stacks and modems. Intel could have made the latter without issue. (In fact, it's making modems now.)

Intel's decision to focus rather than branch out was shortsighted and clearly cost them. That said, "focusing" is a classic business strategy, so I can't blame them too much for following it. However, I think that focusing doesn't pay off the way that it used to. Many of the most successful tech companies at the moment (Google, Amazon, etc.) are branching out like mad, and it's paying dividends.

Comment Shouldn't have sold XScale... (Score 4, Interesting) 81

This is amusing in part because Intel made ARM processors from 1997-2006 (branded StrongARM and later XScale), but decided that ARM processors were silly and sold their ARM processor business in 2006. In hindsight, that was the worst possible timing since the mobile market started to take off shortly thereafter (the first iPhone was 2007. Oh well. At least they're no longer wasting their time trying to cram x86 processors into phones.

Comment Re:Who saw this coming? (Score 1) 192

Care to show me your post where you predicted this?

You caught me AC! I didn't post it on slashdot so I couldn't possibly have thought of it earlier or discussed it with other humans (with friends last week at lunch).

I guess if slashdot is your only means of communicating with other humans, then it makes sense to believe that discussions not posted on slashdot couldn't have happened.

Slashdot Top Deals

MSDOS is not dead, it just smells that way. -- Henry Spencer