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


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:An Artificial Womb Successfully Grew Baby Sheep (Score 1) 188

wow! Thanks for all the kind remarks.

Yes, I know this is /. and reading the article is not required to post in this arena.
However, I still support my original point that this is NOT the headline-grabbing Artificial Womb.

It IS a means of providing extended womb-like support for really early premature births, and should be lauded as a serious accomplishment in it's own merits, as it provides a MUCH better option than a premature birth installed in an oxygenated tank for 'hopeful' completion of the embryo's development.

There is no reason to over-sell it's accomplishments, since the fundamental issue of providing life-support for these premature embryos is a major accomplishment in itself.

Yes, it could very well lead to the actual development of a REAL artificial womb, capable of supporting full embryonic growth from sperm-egg inception to a live birth, but that is another issue altogether - requiring the development of the umbilical link, the development of the nutrient support, the development of the hormone additives (to determine the sex of the embryo), and the development of the 'unknown' issues involved in the early stages of gestation.

Thanks to all the supporters and readers of this forum for your input.

cheers . . .

Comment An Artificial Womb Successfully Grew Baby Sheep -- (Score 5, Informative) 188

Jeez, get a grip - and READ THE ARTICLE.

The apparatus did NOT 'grow' a sheep, it merely kept a premature sheep embryo alive long enough to separate it from the device, and then have it submitted to the knife of the 'scientists' so they could evaluate the effectiveness of the artificial womb.

OK, I am NOT anti-science, and I really do appreciate the accomplishments of this endeavor - - - therefore there is NO reason to blow the accomplishments out of proportion.

THIS 'device' is being put forward as a means to extend the viability of really early premature birth infants so they actually have a chance to survive - - - and NOT as an ARTIFICIAL WOMB with the ability to actually grow an infant from sperm-egg inception to birth.

cheers . . .

Comment Sinclair ZX80 (Score 1) 857

Lovely piece of junk - consumed more of my time than girls (even THINKING about girls).

Next one was a solder-the-chips, burn your own boot ROM, board built around an 8080a - using the ROM I developed in college.
Those were the days - fine-tuning a program at the byte-level to fit into the tiny memory space.
AND those days were the end of actually BUILDING a computer - vs the modern process of plugging in boards onto a purchased motherboard, installed in an off-the-shelf case & power supply. Nowadays, building a computer is pretty much a cookbook affair of assembling a motherboard-processor-memory, power supply, case, and handling a screwdriver to fasten it all together - - - gotta' love progress - - - and pity the poor dweebs that don't even know what eutectic means (reference to 63-37 solder, solid to liquid with no-or-minimal plasticity stage)

Was a real 'ego-trip' to beat your fellow classmates' models by a few microseconds and a few hundred bytes . . . lol

Pity the current gen of kids with GIGs to play with, assemblers/compilers that use generic 'calls' (dll's), and don't give-a-shit about byte-control size or instruction execution times
I 'lived' for the code control and re-use of command-call segments that reduced the overall program size, by CALL'ing into a part of a subroutine to reduce memory usage, and re-using as much code as possible - for as many tasks as possible ! ! !

Eventually (HOPEFULLY) the coding community will re-live those days, and AGAIN deal with minimalist code that optimizes the code to the processor, and reduces the surplus garbage inherent in using 'generalized' DLL's to produce a usable program that doesn't require a DVD for storage space. My best-guess will be around 2025 for 32-bit processors, and 2045 for 64-bit processors. -lol-
Actually, that is just a pipe-dream, as memory continues to increase in size/density, processor speeds increase, and byte-level tweeking gets delegated to the same category as 'flint-knapping'.

OK, so I'm old, and to lazy to look it up, but I do seem to remember a GUI program that was Win XT comparable, running off a 1.2meg floppy.

cheers . . .

Comment Should Burger King Be Prosecuted For Their Google (Score 1) 448

Hey, is there anybody out there as old as me, that remembers the Bill Gates' intro to voice controlled computing - - - when someone in the audience yelled out "Format see colon return" - and the computer did it - - - rofl.
I never did find out what happened to the poor fool that scuppered BG's prime time demo.

Just wait until someone figures out how to diddle the phones to switch to 'speaker-phone', and then proceed to totally trash the house's voice control network ! ! !

cheers . . .

Comment Re:how much for a horse whip mount (Score 1) 80

on SATA - I believe that the majority of the external USB spinning rust consists of a generic SATA drive coupled thru a SATA-to-USB interace.
What I'd really like to see is one of these SBC's with a generic SATA connection along with a set of USB ports so that I could have a chance of recovering the data from old external USB drives.
Someone is going to make a small fortune designing and configuring one of the SBC's for this specific application . . .

Break open the 'dead' external USB drive box, connect the appropriate cable to your SBC, plug in to the USB port for your desktop link, and BINGO - the dead drive can now be copied out to another storage location.

MANY of the external USB failures are because the interface has failed, and replacing that with a generic SBC link, plus appropriate power to the drive and platter, will allow you to recover most, if not all, of the data from the 'dead' external USB drive.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you could always cannibalize a working USB drive for its interface, but that means taking down a working drive on the off-chance that the interface is compatible - not the best solution.

AND there is the issue of compatibility between various interface cards - - - but that is the purpose of using a SBC for the interface - configurable software packages for each type of SATA-to-USB configuration.

cheers . . .

Comment New 'Spray-On' Memory Could Turn Everyday Items In (Score 1) 38

Well, I guess this spells the end of the 'paperless office' revolution.

Going to have to recover all those old loose-leaf binders to repurpose tham as data storage files -lol-

Who'd a thought the old paper junk could actually be digitized, in the most literal sense.

Comment Amazon Looks to Hire 30,000 Part-Time Employees in (Score 1) 95

Hmmmm . . . OK, so it's NOT the premium job everybody dreams of - it STILL pays a (sub) standard wage, and it DOES provide some extra income - and it CAN supplement a retirement income for someone that is bored stiff.
Get a grip - even slave-wagers can provide extra help for the terminally unemployable retired community.
I am NOT advocating this type of employment as a general standard of living, but it DOES provide some of us (disabled, retired, bored, looking for some extra income) with a bit of extra help and a bit of challenge in our lifestyle.

Comment Re:Virtual Drunk (Score 1) 95

I actually saw this done - as a wee lad of 10(ish). My father and an uncle were settling in for an evening of Vodka and tipsy/drunken fun. Something was said that irritated my aunt. She quietly, out of sight of the 2 'grown' men, poured out the Vodka and refilled the 2 bottles with water. We set around and burst into laughter all evening as Dad and Uncle Buddy got totally pissed on 'water' and orange juice - - - rofl.

Comment Re:Who would have guessed? (Score 2) 125

BINGO! (or YAHTZEE! if you prefer)

THIS issue is the primary one I really want to see categorized - - - Do the 'moderate' drinkers have a less stressful life style because they occasionally consume a bit of alcohol _vs_ the teetotallers that don't drink at all (for whatever reason) and the related stresses of the teetotallers lifestyle of FORCED exclusion of relaxing lifestyle issues.

Basically, is the occasional drinker more likely to have a better life-orientation due to the 'tolerant' attitude . . . and thus have a less stressful life than the Abstentionist attitude and lifestyle of the teetotaller ?

Can anyone point to any studies that correlate the effects of a relaxed attitude towards life vs the restrictive attitude of the teetotallers and the stress incurred by their restrictive outlook ? ? ?

There HAS to be some link between a 'relaxed' attitude and a 'restrictive, totally intolerant' attitude when comparing lifestyles and heart-related issues . . . just about everyone knows that restrictive life regimes DO tend to over-tax the heart with stress-related hormonal damage compared to the 'easy going' lifestyles that just let the pressures and stresses wash over them without getting bent out of shape !

Here's tipping (toasting) one to the easy-goers living longer (and better) than the induced highly over-stressed teetotallers ! ! !
Hell, even if the occasional imbibers don't actually live longer, they really DO live better without the stresses of structuring their life to TOTALLY exclude certain activities - and the worries, pressures, internal stresses, etc. induced by their intolerant and restrictive outlooks.

cheers . . .

Comment Re:Interesting how few controls there are (Score 1) 129

hmmmmm . Interesting. I specifically indicated that a 'bogus' PO would got through like nothing was wrong ! ! !
WITH a bogus PO, BOS, BOL, then the payment would by pretty much rubber stamped - paid and 'gone with the wind'.
Perhaps a few less Bud lites, or a more in-depth reading - slowly and out loud, might make my point more obvious.
Mr (or Ms) Hognoxious as a sig pretty much begs for a 'troll' stamp - but I'll ignore the obvious and assume the best - - -
PLEASE be a bit more polite and reasonable - and at least take the effort to elucidate the factors of your rebuttal.

Have a good day, as I intend to have one myself and ignore the tone of your post.

Comment Re:Interesting how few controls there are (Score 1) 129

It all boils down to the individual(s) actually cutting the checks - - - and they are often in their position simply because they are the lower-class personnel dealing with the day-to-day issues of responding to and acting upon the billing / payment section of the company. No corporate business is going to put a a 'premium salary' individual behind a desk to deal with the day-to-day issues of paying 'legitimately' billed services or 'legitimate' looking bills for services or materials. Provide a legitimate looking invoice, and the rest is a cake-walk.

Granted, these individuals have over-sight managers, but the managers' coverage is pretty much an 'after-the-fact' issue, and the disbursement of the funds has already occurred, with no way to stop the transaction, even with too-late-to-matter action(s) by the division manager. The ONLY time a 'manager' gets involved is when a billing request is blatantly bogus, or when it goes above a certain established minimum-level valuation - - - which in large companies can approach-or-exceed the hundred-thou$and dollar level.

Bottom Line - the work-a-day clerk that cuts the check is relatively easy to spoof - with the proper looking documents, and any oversight / validation action is going to be too late to stop the actual fund$ transfer. Their only recourse, then, is to TRY and present evidence that the billing was a scam, and then attempt to recover the already-disbursed funds - generally a near futile action even when the company can provide legal evidence to the authorities - - - and even then, to wait for a long time (years, and years) for the legal system to respond - - - many times too late to actually get their hands on the funds that have been disbursed - - - and then 'disappeared' by the scammers.

Comment US Ally Shot Down a $200 Drone With a $3 Million (Score 1) 318

Lets look at a relatively modern concept - - - ASYMMETRIC WARFARE
This fits the definition better than anything else has over the last couple of decades.
Grab a couple of dozen 'drones' at less than $300 each, and cause the expenditure of multi-million dollar munitions to be used for EACH of them !

SOMEONE needs to fall back on the simpler, but reliable, method of using laser-tagged bazooka-style munitions to 'down' these drones.

The Viet Nam era shoulder fired rocket launchers would be ideal for this type of coverage, and there has to be a lot of these old(er) munitions stockpiled somewhere. Just because they were vulnerable to local-fire when used against tanks does NOT mean they were useless - just that they were inappropriate for that type of mission. Pull them out of mothballs, and re-task them for THIS type of mission.
Even at a few thousand dollars each, they are virtually worthless sitting buried in a munitions warehouse - but could easily be re-purposed for these types of missions - essentially using already-paid-for materials, AND freeing up storage space and logistic accountability costs.
Use the Patriot targeting systems, link to the shoulder-launched warheads for target acquisition, and blow the quad- / hex- / octo-copters out of the sky.

Slashdot Top Deals

Waste not, get your budget cut next year.