Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment wireless isn't a replacement (Score 2) 51

Apple is so far up it's ass on this whole "it's all wireless in the future and the future is now" bullshit...

Bluetooth is great, but battery life and size are often fatally problematic to the notion of "just get bluetooth headphones" is some kind of universal solution rendering headphones with cords (btw the headphone jack is also a *universally compatible data port*) obsolete and somehow justifying Apple's design strategy and marketing on these products.

Let me address this now, people will definitely comment, "But I have used bluetooth headphones for years and the battery life and sound quality are sufficient"...that's great, but it's not evidence that proves this is a good design decision.

Bluetooth headphones are caught between wanting to be as small as possible, have longer battery life, and not teathering them for convenience somehow (b/c then might as well use a cord!). It's what happens when you let marketing drive design, an obtuse impass where no solution is right. Wireless headphones with 8 hours of battery life is not enough for many, many users. For many various reasons. It really is noteworthy that the smaller they get the more they would benefit from cords, which are the whole thing they attempt to avoid.

We are far, far away from wireless headphones being a de facto replacement for wired headphones such that we can just discard the headphone port.

Comment Re:Heads-up Texas Holdem (Score 1) 156

You have never done any game development, it's obvious.

The step from single-player game to multiplayer game is not a simple upgrade, it's a complete shift in everything. It requires a completely different approach, not a refined version of the same approach.

In any non-trivial multiplayer game, the interactions between all the players matter, and the complexity of those is subject to combinatorial explosion. Poker being a relatively low-interaction game will not make this as bad as some others, but beating one person and beating a table of people is not the same system with a little more cycles, it quite possibly requires a different approach altogether.

It will be interesting to see the jump happen, but it is a jump, not a step.

AI beating humans at a game is merely a beta test. The real application will feed unending greed, which will never die.

Greed is a game.

Comment Re:saving money (Score 1) 109

Is that US-only or is that the story they are telling?

I look at Spain and Italy and Greece and while they didn't have the best economy to start with, it was the bailouts that did them in.

I also wonder, where did these billions come from? The stock exchange is a zero-sum game. So who paid these billions to the taxpayer?

Comment Re: "quantum" computing (Score 1) 45

I will definitely have a look, thank you very much.

There is something here that I think is relevant:

Bell essentially codified the latter's reservations and wanted to prove Einstein right, but nature did not cooperate.....It's these weird experimental results that have brow beaten physicists accepting entanglement as a fundamentally non-local phenomenon, against the marked resistance of some of the best and brightest minds like Einstein and Bell.

Now, I don't expect a response necessarily because I'm just spitballing here (and you've been very kind thusfar attempting to explain your point to me)....but I seem to recall from my previous look into "spooky action at a distance" that the idea that Einstein and Bell had been "proven wrong" was generally accepted, but only if we make some assumptions about how the universe works that, while generally accepted as true, are dependent on a definition of some concepts that are abstract and not scientifically provable.

I know...read your links...and I will (thanks again)...but I just can't shake the idea that I've taken a deep dive into this before and found that there are still some fundamental assumptions that are a sort of philosphical scaffolding for proving Bell/Einstein "wrong" on action at a distance.

Comment Re: "quantum" computing (Score 1) 45

entanglement establishes an instantaneous signalling is grossly wrong

look at the tachyonic anti-telephone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

using non-local quantum entaglement to instantaneously transmit information indeed would be faster-than-light

humans have not achieved non-local entanglement, nor have they used it for computing, and unless you redefine "quantum" then it's not possible for these to be "quantum computers"

yes, you're right that we could only verify the signal transmission at light speed, but if it is instantaneous then it's instantaneous...if the phenomenon happens and we verify it then the ability is confirmed...time is more than just what any one observer sees and we can determine if something was instantaneous vs faster-than-light...why couldn't we?

I'm just a telecommunications scientist so this is definitely out of my expertise in some ways, but I think I know enough to understand that true non-locality has not been achieved and that for a "quantum" computer to truly be quantum, it would have to use actual instantaneous non-locality to process

thanks for this discussion it's been helpful

Comment test run (Score 1) 199

Which manufacturing capacity does ISIS have left? Which engineers have not yet run away from the sinking ship?

Someone is using ISIS as a test run for their latest toy, and it's not the Russians (they would test by themselves). Expect the US or some of its allies to use weaponized small drones in the next war against the next terrorists, the result of "years of military research".

Comment Re: "quantum" computing (Score 1) 45

What is unclear is how useful this process will actually be in practice. Quantum speed-ups are not at all guaranteed with this design. That's were the focus should be. Not some rehashed conspiracy theory that D-Wave is faking their hardware.

you're hitting it here...

the controversy is about what "fake" is...actual quantum non-locality would be faster than light information and that would turn Einstein's theories, as well as many other theories on their head

critics are right to say that D-wave is not actual quantum computing and it just hurts us all to let marketing rule in this arena

now, is D-wave "faking their hardware"? in essence, no, it's real software on a machine that exists in reality...but it's not "quantum" like they are claiming

everyone wants to race to being able to say "quantum" and predictably people are cheating on how they define it to claim to be the first...it's not a new tactic, but we should still be critical of it!

Comment Re: "quantum" computing (Score 1) 45

simulated...it's all simulated

actual 'non-locality' would be faster-than-light travel and turn some core Einstein theories on their head...b?it would be transmitting information isntantaneously regardless of distance and that would be kind of a big deal

it's all simulated at some level...simulated or redefined in such a way to make it not actual non-locality

Comment Re:a little late, no? (Score 5, Insightful) 300

they could have chosen the 32 gb option and used a bigger battery, but it "has to be thin" so they went with the lpddr3.

this is indeed what happened...it's designing with marketing first instead of the user...

I'm fine with Apple having cheesey, trendy marketing, but they need to put the user first in their design decisions.

Marketing can figure out something...they pay them enough ffs...but they really need to change how they make design decisions.

One day, maybe far, far in the future, but some day Microsoft might figure out that if they avoid their garbage spyware/adware software they can ruin Apple due to their market penetration from government contracts....if Apple is still letting ad slogans guide design at that point, on that day Microsoft will kill Apple.

Comment Apple must put the user first again, not marketing (Score 5, Insightful) 300

This is a good step, but there's a greater fallacy at work at Apple here: The triumph of marketing demands over technical needs of the user.

Apple is great...they are better than Microsoft at making both hardware and software (especially software). Apple's OS is basically Unix with a candy coated shell and it is the best for basically anything except gaming (I know broad statement...I'm sure there are other applications that are better on Windoze but I'm speaking broadly...chill).

Apple's mistake, and it's a big one, is letting advertising phrases like "Our thinnest Macbook Pro yet!" override user centered design.

Same goes for their port nonsense...removing the headphone jack was a huge mistake, it's a *data port* that is backwards compatible with 100 year old tech. They wanted to advertise their phones as "waterproof" so instead of making the port waterproof like other companies, they just remove it and let marketing handle it. Disgusting.

Apple can easily regain their footing by putting the users first in their design decisions and stop their design hubris.

Slashdot Top Deals

I put up my thumb... and it blotted out the planet Earth. -- Neil Armstrong