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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Not entirely sure (Score 2) 115

" I think that putting cameras in places with rampant crime", WOW, they are going to put cameras in corporate boardrooms whose claimed value is beyond a billion dollars, that's fantastic because of course that is where crime is by far the most rampant and not the petty crime of the streets. No the crimes are corruption of democracy, treason, wars for profit, bad medicines, tainted food, completely corrupted fourth estate, mass fraud of every description, I mean really horrendous crimes that cost of the lives of misery and cause the suffering of billions.

Cops are getting body cams when are the far more corrupt politicians going to get body cams, their decisions often resulting in far more suffering and how they came about that decision being of extreme importance to the voting public.

Here is betting there will be no public cameras watching where by far the bulk of crimes are actually being committed.

Comment Re:Not me (Score 1) 114

I started putting on free aps, never bought any apps because pretty much, I never really much used the free apps and ending up deleting them all, except government provided ones, local, state and federal (don't use those much either except when I actually need to). When it comes to mobile content, I simple went with a phone that allowed large added storage and built up a library of content to dump on the phone, done and finished (more than enough for when moving about).

Comment Re:scare mongering getting old (Score 3, Interesting) 67

Reality is "Identity Theft" is a purposeful lie produced by public relations and marketing agencies to push the burden of the crime from the banks to individuals. It is a lie. The reality is the fraud is not against the individual the fraud is against those who accept that false identity. Why the shift, so you the ignorant mug punters get stuck with the loss and the banks wander off laughing.

The truth is, when you get hit by a false claim, you are entitled to seek the prosecution of those who attempted to make that false claim. By any reasoned justice those who made the false claim against you must now prove they were defrauded by another party, else be charged with fraud themselves. It should never ever be up to you to prove anything, you should just be able to forward a complaint of false fiscal claims against you as fraud to the authorities and let them deal with it.

Of course the banks would end up with the bill, hence the scam of identity theft, where you the innocent party and now liable for the corrupt stupidity of the banks until you can prove your innocence, can you not see the criminal corruption in that.

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 1) 439

This is all very natural and good

Nice frame jump. What's natural and good in human culture (exodus from Eden being at the outset nasty, brutish, and short) is to get as far away as humanly possible from what's natural and good in nature (red in tooth and claw).

So I call SB.

[*] strange bedfellows

Comment Re:Umm (Score 1) 376

What you need are citations to trustworthy sources and to be reviewed by trustworthy peers.

You've already lost the fight: no human system outperforms its incentive structure.

Peer review is hopelessly ensnared by academic advancement culture. Entire disciplines can end up publishing bunk, if that becomes the tenure-track fashion of the decade. Tulip bubbles are not restricted to the business cycle. Even hard sciences have been hit pretty bad. Et tu, string theory?

The fundamental theorem of peer review is due to Max Planck:

Science advances one funeral at a time.

The zone of convergence of peer review involves the passing of interested parties. In most of the hard sciences, fifty years pretty much weeds out the crap.

However, if you take a field such as nutrition science, I dare say it's still inadvisable to take fresh "peer review" at face value. John Yudkin was on the right track in 1958. Fifty years downstream, the truth is out there, but it's still far from evenly distributed in the public imagination.

Nutrition science was subverted by a white coat army of industry apparatchiks. These studies are expensive and, oh yeah, replication crisis.

Most human systems can be trusted some of the time. The real art of bullshit detection is figuring which times are those times. Even the best human systems are bullshit on the margin.

Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly

What you need to understand here is that the journalist impulse to publish is directly proportional to the tenuousness of the result in question.

Well, if the speed of light falls derp derp wormholes derp derp Stargate derp derp dusty von Daniken booster spice derp derp human immorality derp derp Omni Magazine alternate-reality cum shot. Well, you got your $4 worth, didn't you?

There's an enormous term in the human condition centered around escape from reality. This makes sense to some degree, because human reality usually contains a giant heal spur of oppression of the downtrodden masses (success has a habit of being highly asymmetric).

Trump's monosyllabic barrage becomes tremendously more convincing if you want to believe the underlying message.

Somehow, one supposes, being suckers for false hope must be evolutionarily adaptive (who, after all, is qualified to challenge the modern evolutionary synthesis?)

And then you get right down to it, the anchor tenants of modern bullshit culture are the major religions (being largely incompatible, at most 1 of N could anywhere close to broadly correct). Because, you know, life without bullshit would be empty and meaningless.

Deep down, most of us don't really want to drain the bullshit pond. And it's not just one pond. It's pond after pond. Never get comfortable.

The fundamental theorem of bullshit busting is due to Richard Feynman:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

Evolution took a long look at Hamlet, and came up with satisficing.

Make happy assumptions that are compatible with medium-term survival (generally best obtained from proven survivors—aka your parents and select community), then behave with the efficiency of assuming their truth, until the shit really hits the fan; then sit back, renounce, regroup, and repeat.

Dawkins pretty much feels about religion the way Einstein felt about cosmic inflation and quantum indeterminacy. Right model, wrong hope, long painful row to hoe. Even when our best minds get something right, they're often left wishing they hadn't.

So there's this unhappy observation about the human condition, meanwhile the creationists are still stuck on our too-close-for-comfort family resemblance to the other apes (none of whom are paragons of family values).

For some reason that I'm still striving to properly elucidate, bullshit is a prized lubricant of human culture.

For forty years I've lived a Mertonesque credo that "godlessness is next to cleanliness" and so I've managed to winnow the standard-issue pint ("but trailing clouds of gesta do we come") down to about a teaspoon of personal bullshit lubricant.

[*] our heritage of gesta (deeds) soon turns to egesta (bodily waste), which completely explains e-gesta (deeds on the internet)

Not long ago, I was reading Amos Tversky on the perils of metaphor, and now suddenly the scales fall from my eyes.

For 99% of the population, bullshit is sugar sweet. And even among the recalcitrant 1%, no-one ever sheds their very last sweet tooth.

Comment DLMO (Score 5, Informative) 118

The article has a poor to false understanding of how blue light interacts with DLMO (dim light melatonin onset).

I'm pretty sure the entrainment effect of blue light is via direct neuronal connection to the SCN, and I doubt it involves melatonin, except indirectly.

The homeostatic sleep pressure signal builds up (more or less linearly) for as long as you're awake. On its own, this would mean that you taper into drowsiness all day long. So the sleep system has another mechanism that suppresses response to the sleep pressure signal. I vaguely recall that what happens with DLMO is that melatonin onset signals the body to turn off the suppression switch, so that the body begins to notice the homeostatic sleep pressure signal.

DLMO, however, is easily inhibited by exposure to blue light at a point in time approximately an hour before bedtime. If you're outdoors hunting moose in the bright light of late-evening arctic summer, this is a useful adaptation.

You'll get to bed later, which means you'll sleep a bit later (but not much) and then you will get less blue light early the next morning, which will affect your entrainment, gradually, on the slow-drip program.

As a rough, empirical ratio, for every extra hour you stay up, you'll sleep about twenty minutes later the next morning. It's not uncommon to stay up for an extra two hours, then barely sleep in for an extra half hour. (We need to ignore here that modern society tends to run a massive, permanent sleep deficit, which can suddenly turn into sleeping four to six hours late at the first opportunity that allows this to happen. That's a different beast entirely.)

I have a circadian rhythm disorder, and I know from decades of sleep tracking that morning wake-up time is about three times more reliable in estimating my sleep phase than time of retirement.

This is a worthwhile paper from the top of my notes, but it's hard to wade through:

Estimating Dim Light Melatonin Onset (DLMO) Phase in Adolescents Using Summer or School-Year Sleep/Wake Schedules — 2006

I like this paper because it shows how social convention (adolescent schooling) also influences DLMO phase.

The sleep pressure signal eventually overwhelms the suppression of this signal, regardless of the DLMO mechanism.

James Maas is a good representative of the modern sleep science orthodoxy:

Surefire Strategies to Sleep for Success!

I just love the page break at the end of page 6. But then I'm really into microscopic moments of small page-formatting humour. (It's probably not unrelated to all those long, lonely nights, before I found a viable treatment.)

Here's a good summary, I just found for the first time.

Phase Response Curve

The reason I only vaguely remember this mechanism is that all the phase response curves in the literature are dose dependent.

There is no PRC I've ever seen that computes the phase response differential to endogenous melatonin levels. No, what you do is administer some dose/formulation (which can include sustained-release components) at staggered times over several weeks, and then you plot the graph averaged over your test population (which thus includes all the metabolic uptake and clearance variability).

There was a time I desperately wanted to consult one of these curves and then to declare "I am here", but it never happened. These are, in effect, better regarded as qualitative curves than quantitative curves.

The model was never predictive enough to be worth memorizing exactly. And thus I remain slightly dim on DLMO when I really shouldn't be after all these years.

Comment Re:I'm not surprised. (Score 3, Interesting) 892

Really? Then why was it OK when Bill Clinton had sex with an intern?

The price of shame — March 2015

At the age of 22, I fell in love with my boss, and at the age of 24, I learned the devastating consequences.

The Republican weaponization of Clinton's misdeed was to claim that this behaviour made Bill unfit to govern. (If powerful men having extramarital affairs with young women was incompatible with leadership, well, the vast sweep of history does not so record.)

Family values aside, the power imbalance creates the risk that Bill would abuse his immense power to cover up the vastly exaggerated blot on his record. The Republicans actually knew that anyone with an accurate base rate of human history / human culture would not regard his behaviour as incompatible with leadership—though a common and damning blot nevertheless, so the tactic was to escalate the stakes until Bill felt compelled to lie about it—which, unfortunately, was extremely easy to anticipate.

Lying to formal body of review is considered incompatible with leadership, sort of, incrementally, since not all that long ago. For example, it barely extends as far back as the Reagan's Iran–Contra affair. (Some people roll with family values and view Clinton's offense as the worse offense. I happen to roll with geopolitical transparency, and so I view Reagan's offense as the worse offense—he appointed those clucks, and it was his ultimate responsibility to know all the big shit).

Bill was plenty smart enough to figure out that the public perception battle would play out exactly as it did, leaving him boxed into a corner where he could—according to his established character—only choose to lie (perhaps he overestimated his power to blow off the investigation, but even there, had he succeeded, he would have mortgaged a sizeable fraction of his presidential energy in ruthlessly defending his momentary gratification).

Clearly, his judgment in this matter fell short of the mark by any standard.

However, I rate it not quite as bald as boasting about sexual harassment with a camera rolling. Whatever Bill purportedly said to Donald on the golf course (that was "far worse" in Donald's personal judgement), there was no film at eleven after the fact.

The modern world contains a lot of cameras and microphones. Trump's world has contained many cameras and microphones since way back. A prudent man in his position wouldn't be openly bragging about his magical power to get away with sexual harassment just to impress Billy Bush. And it's not like Donald didn't have a front row vantage point on Bill sinking his own boat through which to consider and amend his own standard of personal conduct. Donald had every opportunity to know better, and the penny never dropped.

So in summary, a whole lot of things are "not okay" but still the world largely spins as it has always done for thousands of years.

Comment Real Solution (Score 1) 274

Place a deposit on all good sold equal to the current cost of proper disposal at net present for the estimated life of the product. The manufacturer has to take the product back and dispose of it at end of life but in return they get an interest free loan for the life of the product. THis shifts the burden to the designers and rewards them for making a easy to dispose of product and rewards them for making it not disposable. The float is how Warren Buffet got rich FYI.

Comment Re:Windows (Score 4, Interesting) 223

Here http://store.steampowered.com/... let me fix that for you and http://store.steampowered.com/.... Yeah not so much any more and if you check you steam library you will find out exactly which Mac OS and Linux games you already own, just waiting to be downloaded and installed.

The desktop is a dying market except for power users, hobbyists, scientist. Business is making the shift to smart terminals and for less secure communication purposes simple disposable notebooks (no windows in site lust secure locked doors, nobody wants the employees wide open to the prying eyes of potential competitors who pay for M$ for access).

It could have been a shrinking market with windows but M$ killed that, so the desktop will become a shrinking market with Linux and of all companies, Apple, still a good solid professional market, pretty much back to its main professional market prior to consumer PCs which in reality when technology caught up is smart phones (fitted VR micro glasses for gaming), smart TVs, tablets for the smart TVs and disposable notebooks for communications (not gaming).

Whoops no gaming console, yep, pretty much no gaming console.

Comment Re:Go visit Mar-a-Lago and complain (Score 1) 505

So let me get this straight. You think a phone the US President uses to make personal PUBLIC tweets to the PUBLIC needs to be secured from what exactly ?!? Just curious as to what it needs to be secured from, as long as it is off when he does not use it, in fact Secret Service agent could hand it to the President upon request ie put the battery in and turn it on and here yah go El Presidente (true for any country in the world, not just to pick on the incompetence of the US Secret Service because it would be them who is at fault on so elementary a security failure) ie being able to listen in on that phone when it is not making personal presidential PUBLIC tweets to the PUBLIC (which you want to keep private from exactly who, Aliens perhaps).

Comment Re:That's why I pay to recycle monitors (Score 0, Troll) 274

I know that's no guarantee but you do the best you can.

Considering how much you originally paid for your deoxygenated speaker wire, I would say $40 is the least you can do.

Were you to model the price signal with quaternion rotation instead, you would discover that the price signal really can spin around to a perfect 180-degree inversion of "the best you can do", given but a sparse free-energy input of mindless optimism, and a scant few months to capture abandoned area under the curve (and that's not even including the machine learning revolution).

Perhaps capitalism eventually does the right thing, but not until after imbibing all the loose sugar.

First Law of Mice and Men: If something can go wrong, it will go wrong.

Corollary: If something can lead to an easy buck, it will lead to an easy buck.

Unfortunately, all the quaternions in this picture belong to the increasingly neutered EPA.

Comment Re:Never heard of it... (Score 1) 67

I followed it for a year or so, but it got old. Don't know what it's like in recent decades. Schlock is an alien with a number of useful talents, but beauty isn't one of them. There is (or was) also a handsome captain, a (slightly) mad scientist, a "beautiful" nurse, etc. And they get in a lot of fights. (I may have misremembered some of that.)

So it's pretty much a standard formula, but not too bad. https://www.schlockmercenary.c... thanks to Google.

Comment Re:Process already in place for fake Trump tweets (Score 1) 505

Point. I thought that was probably true, but couldn't find a reference, so I went with the more inclusive term. (You can't get a 2/3 vote without also getting a majority vote.)

As I said, the chances are extremely remote, and it could only happen if a large number of Republican legislators get extremely upset.

Slashdot Top Deals

In specifications, Murphy's Law supersedes Ohm's.

Working...