Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:massive parallel processing=limited application (Score 1) 55

Also, there is caching, and also, some loads are heavy on longish FPU operations.

So... it doesn't quite work out that way. Also, multicore designs can have separate memory.

One example of multicore design that's both interesting and functional are the various vector processor graphics cores. Lots of em in there; and they get to do a lot of useful work you couldn't really do any other way with similar clock speeds and process tech.

Comment Re:Thats it? (Score 1) 156

With a user base in the millions (hundreds of millions?), there has probably been many billions of human activity hours spent on pokemon go. The fact that it requires movement and so far there is only one known death attributed to it means overall its probably responsible for a huge reduction in fatalities!

I don't think that's how death attribution works.

I think Pokemon Go is a good thing, and do the extend to motivates people to move around and engage it's a very good thing, but that doesn't mean the distraction aspect isn't a problem. Drivers using Pokemon Go is a huge concern for me.

Comment Re:Solution: Buy legislators. All of them. (Score 1) 186

You cherry pick the bad ones.

Well, I cherry picked the high end devices, yes -- because they were sold claiming the feature sets that were compelling. Now, the fact that those feature sets were incomplete, and/or buggy, and/or mischaracterized... that's something I didn't pick. But it's been very consistent, and the higher end the device, the more consistent it's been.

It just sounds like you do business with shitty companies.

Well, Canon for the camera. Marantz for the pre-pro. Kenwood for the radio. I totally agree they are shitty companies. And they won't be getting any more of my money. It's not like I can't learn.

The bottom line is, these devices have, and were sold trumpeting, the mechanisms that would allow them to be fixed and/or improved. They aren't fixed, and they surely aren't improved in any significant way. I'm just reporting it, and drawing a general (and accurate) conclusion about considering "network upgradable" to be anything more than marketing hype.

You don't like what I'm saying, okay, more power to you. I'm still saying it, though. And I'm still right, so there's that. :)

Comment Re:So global warming started... TSARKON reports (Score 2, Insightful) 567

The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times!

That was 200 million years ago, even the days were 23 hours long and the years more than 20 days longer.

There's a reason scientists publish papers in peer reviewed journals, not every decision is as simple as jumping on the first convenient looking factoid.

Comment Re:Stop it with the SJW crap!!! (Score 2) 567

This is not Reddit, FFS!

How about an article on the dozens of predictions made by climate scientists that never ended up happening? The ones like " No more snow by 2012" etc?

Why always toe the line?

Yeah! Why isn't there an article blaming scientists for all the bizarre predictions you imagined them making?

Comment Credibility of the system (Score 5, Insightful) 221

"Legalist says it uses an algorithm of 58 different variables including, as [Legalist cofounder] Eva Shang told the Silicon Valley Business Journal, who the presiding judge is

That different judges give different outcomes is already common knowledge but putting an actual dollar value on it might have significant repercussions.

What happens when someone asks for a judge to recuse themselves because the litigation value tripled when the judge got assigned? It's a lot harder to defend the integrity of the system when supposedly impartial actors have quantifiable effects.

Comment Re:Bill Nye... (Score 4, Insightful) 411 the Donald Trump of scientists.

Yeah, except for the ridiculous lying, misogyny, racist remarks, authoritarian tendencies, complete disdain for expert opinion, and hair that is the obvious result of a poorly executed medical procedure.

It's just like a bowl of icecream is the pile of compost of desserts. As in they're complete opposites.

Comment Re:Can I see? (Score 1) 183

I'd like to see what they say about me. I bash both parties all the time. My comments on every subject are usually sarcastic. Do they have a working sarcasm detector? Or is it all about the things you follow? George Takei is a gay rights activist. So would a conservative who likes ice cream (ben and jerrys) and George Takei be labeled liberal?

Or is someone who is far-left who attacks Hillary going to be labeled conservative for being anti-Democrat?

They could also look at your friends and their affiliations, your likes, the articles you read, how other people respond to the things you post, etc, etc.

They might have you completely wrong, but without knowing their specific approach or how much data they're using it's hard to say which people they will get wrong (or right).

I've seen those types of labels applied. They never work. I got rejected from a minimum wage job in college because the chain store had a standard questionaire. If you answered that you don't use drugs, but think they should be legal, you were considered a lying drug user. The makers of the test couldn't conceive of someone who thinks drugs should be legal and regulated, and wouldn't use them if they were. Though, this was 20+ years ago, so the modern legalization swing wasn't popular yet.

I'm not sure proof by incompetently written questionnaire holds.

I can only think that the labels are wrong much of the time, and the effectiveness of them is over-stated to increase Facebook's ad income.

The labels don't have to be perfect to help FB. Even if you've correctly categorized only 50% of people into one of three broad categories that's still very valuable information for advertisers.

Comment Solution: Buy legislators. All of them. (Score 5, Interesting) 186

Captain Obvious Competition.


These companies already have your money, so updating a device that's already been sold is a needless expense. There's also a good argument to be made that updating a device hurts future sales. If your phone isn't updated, it will start to feel old, so you're more likely to buy a new phone sooner.

Yes. I have a high-end preamp-processor, updatable over the net. Plenty of bugs. Did they ever fix them, much less add new features? No. Did they release a new model? Yes. I have a high-end camera. Updatable over the net. Plenty of bugs. Did they ever fix them, much less add new features? No. Did they release a new model? Yes. I have a high-end radio transceiver. Updatable over the net. Plenty of bugs. Did they ever fix them, much less add new features? No. Did they release a new model? Yes. And so on.

The whole "we can update your device" bit is a scam (and often, so is the "we can update your software" bit.) The only way a corporation is likely to actually update hardware responsibly is if legislation forces them to. And good luck trying to get THAT in place when corporations outright buy the decisions of the legislatures.

Slashdot Top Deals

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -- Albert Einstein