Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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 Maybe (Score 5, Insightful) 416

Part of the reason Windows was successful was that it supported a lot of hardware, with only one API. Android needs to insure that it's not difficult to write a single application that will run on every decently modern ( 2 year old) android phone, or else it would give up what is probably its biggest advantage.

Comment Re:Unfortunately... (Score 1) 839

Even if Earth threw all of its resources at sending people on one way trips to Mars, we wouldn't even be able to keep up with our current population growth rates. Currently we're experiencing ~1% growth, so in order to decrease the population of the Earth only by sending people to Mars we'd have to be sending almost 200,000 people a day, which seems extremely impractical.

It would have to be several orders of magnitude cheaper to get people to Mars than it is with our current technologies to have a chance at reducing earth's population in this manner. In fact, I haven't seen any sort of proposal for a cheap way into orbit that is believably scalable to that magnitude of people. Maybe something like a few space elevators would allow 1,000 people a day to head off for Mars, which would allow for a large city (or several small ones) to be built very quickly, but humanity isn't even close to being able to pull off an exodus like you suggest.

  I think that practically, the best way to decrease the population on Earth is to do what China's doing with population controls, though it would really be better if people would just self regulate, rather than having the government get involved with that.

Comment Re:(0.999...)st Post! (Score 1) 1260

Any finite number of 3s making up 0.33333333.....30 is an aproximation of 1/3. In the real numbers (or the complex numbers, or the rational numbers), 0.3333333... (as in an infinite number of 3s after the decimal point) is precisely 1/3. If you consider the sequence .3, .33, .333, .3333. The limit of that sequence is what happens when you reach infinity. That limit happens to be 1/3. The same is true for 1/9.
In other words, you simply can't put a real number between 0.333333333333333... and 1/3. For the real numbers, if |a - b| < epsilon, for any positive epsilon, then a = b.

Comment Re:We need standards, good ones too. For Linux, to (Score 1) 558

Your point about the binary is precisely why having the source code is preferable to a compiled application.

If every app had it's source code distributed with it's binary, being locked in to old platforms would rarely happen.

With the source code, and some following of basic standards that have been around forever (like POSIX) it's not terribly difficult to get pretty much any app to work on pretty much any platform

Slashdot Top Deals

The power to destroy a planet is insignificant when compared to the power of the Force. - Darth Vader