Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

New Research Suggests Cancer May Be an Intrinsic Property of Cells

JerryLove Re:So what they need, then... (185 comments)

And how do you transfer your mind, which is made up of an individual pattern of pathways of neurons and synapse unique to the individual? You can't transfer the brain because it too ages. The DNA overtime suffers replication transcription errors. You might the able to extend the telomeres or re-program the DNA using the CRISPR method...maybe.

I think this is it. The only way to "extend your life" is via procreation. Whatever knowledge you transfer to your child[ren] will be your long lasting legacy left behind.

A sufficiently advanced emulation of your brain would be more "you" than your children are "you".

As to maintaining DNA over an indefinite time. That's already done. That is the nature of binary fission (how cells reproduce). All cells are as old as the first parent cell billions of years ago.

When one cell splits into two: there isn't a "parent" and a "child". They are both the same cell. You are the same cell that your mother grew from and her mother before her. Want an even clearer example? How old is an amoeba?

about two weeks ago
top

Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft

JerryLove Re:All that money... (579 comments)

Yep. And then all that money that would be used to pay salaries that would be used on expenses locally, making the local economy work, will be redirected to Bill Gate's pockets.

Who in turn gave the vast bulk of his money to end disease, educate children, feed the world, etc.

I can live with that.

Considering Germany is a net exporter: I'm not sure "keeping the money local" is actually a need.

When in a few years, when all our documents will be locked in a proprietary cloud (that anyone with the right influence will have access) or stored locally in a format that you must pay to read, remember 2004.

MS uses XML to save documents. Put them wherever you like.

Use of cloud storage is hardly unique to MS. Want me to start citing Linux distros doing it?

about two weeks ago
top

World's Fastest Camera Captures 4.4 Trillion Frames Per Second

JerryLove Some details (94 comments)

First FTA: There's a mention of a previous camera...
"Back in 2011, researchers from MIT created a high-speed camera that captured light passing through an empty bottle in slow motion by acquiring visual data at one trillion frames a second – to the STAMP cam, more than four times faster than this, even the speed of light could be as stimulating as watching paint dry."

That's misleading. The camera in 2011 didn't do amazingly high FPS capture. What it did have was very short capture with precise timing. That video of a laser moving through a bottle was actually thousands of successive laser shots. More like stop-motion than video.

Now this camera I see fewer details on. I do see that one thing it seems to do is to divide a laser with a prism and use the separation to make virtual frames by using different receptors.

Let me make an analogy. If you took a normal RGB color sensor from a camera, and exposed it, and during that exposure you fired a red flash, then a green flash than a blue flash one after the other. Take your resulting picture and break it into three by color and you have 3 "frames". They appear to be doing this with a large number of wavelengths.

about two weeks ago
top

Hunt Intensifies For Aliens On Kepler's Planets

JerryLove Re:What if there isn't any truth out there? (93 comments)

That's kind of an ignorant view. Considering the amount of resources in the uninhabited parts of the universe (which is beyond a staggering amount) why would any one enter conflict over a small planet (us).

Any species capable of interstellar travel is going to be able to pull resources out of pure energy. They don't mine, or need our water. They don't care what we do, except maybe they observe us and snicker.

From "The Killing Star"

When we put our heads together and tried to list everything we could say with certainty about other civilizations, without having actually met them, all that we knew boiled down to three simple laws of alien behavior:

THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL.
If an alien species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being self-sacrificing.

WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS.
No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given planet will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

THEY WILL ASSUME THAT THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US.

That's just why they would be willing... but it gets worse: There's an imperative.

Once a certain amount of technology and capacity and know-how has fled the homeworld: we, as a species, become capable of attacking another species even if our homeworld is wiped out. In short: there's a limited window during which species A could reliably exterminate species B without worrying that some missed portion of species B could retaliate.

So imagine some alien sees us right now. If they killed everyone on Earth (perhaps bombarded us with relativistic weapons), we could neither mount a defense nor seek retribution. 200 years from now: perhaps there would be enough off-planet resources that, after the destruction of Earth we could secretly build relativistic weapons of our own and retaliate.

So the only way for that species to guarantee its own survival is to wipe out potential rivals early.

about 3 months ago
top

Misogyny, Entitlement, and Nerds

JerryLove Re:Are you sure? (1198 comments)

Except you are taking this off-topic because right now, at this moment, we are discussing women in geek/nerd circles. Specifically a guy who seemed at least a bit nerdy and blamed women for not seeing what a nice guy he was (translated: faker who pretends not to be interested in them romantically). While the vast majority of nerdy guys certainly wouldn't do anything violent, there are many, many thousands of them who share the same attitude: women just won't see what a nice guy he is and it's all their fault for being bitches and whaaaaaaaaaa.

Every single time someone tries to start a discussion about how women are treated in nerd/geek circles, a bunch of my fellow guys jump in and change the conversation to be about something else. Why? Because geek/nerd culture is dominated by white men so we have the largest number of voices.

Just for once, can we have a discussion about women in tech without trying to change the subject? Please? White male geek asking nicely here.

1) I already directly addressed "this guy"... and a discussion of nerd culture and "this guy" are not the same topic to begin with. I will remind you "And as to this narccissitic murderer. I've no doubt he was masogynist, but it's wrong to say that he was the product of that culture. I've seen this guy before. He's the two kids at Columbine. He's the postal worker that went after his bosses. He suffers from narccissism and a feeling of persecution (which may have at least some level of truth) and blames others for his misfortune. In Columbine it was jocks. With many, it's their boss or neighbor. For this kid it was women (among others: He also lashes out at a lack of friends. IIRC: The majority of his victims were male)."

2) I don't know what "we" are discussing; but I am discussing the article, the statements made within it, and the topics raised by it: including the attitudes of the various writers themselves and whether those attitudes are appropriate or meritorious. You've picked a very narrow pair of issues from within that article and wish to force others to confine their comments to that portion. Happily: you are not in charge.

Indeed: the article has basically nothing to do with women (which you say is the topic). The topic of the article is actually men. So perhaps *you* should not toss down the red-herrings?

about 3 months ago
top

Misogyny, Entitlement, and Nerds

JerryLove Are you sure? (1198 comments)

"We are not the ones who have our ownership over our bodies and our emotions stepped on constantly by other people's entitlement. We're not the ones where one out of six of us will have someone violently attempt to take control of our bodies in our lifetimes.'"

Are you sure?

I mean: I've never been raped. That's a legitimate fear of many women that I'm unlikely to experience outside the penal system. But I've been shoved into walls. I've been dumped in a trash can (that was when I was 5 years old). I've had notebooks knocked from me, signs put on me, been punched, kicked, had my property vandalized, been ridiculed publicly, shot with a slingshot, hit with a car.... all for having been the different kid. All for having been the nerd.

Will I ever *really* know what it's like to be a woman? No. Will a straght woman know what a homosexual man goes through? Will a white person understand the plight of a black one? Will the Jock understand the Nerd? No. Will an American Christian understand the Muslim, Wiccan, or Athiest? No.

There are a lot of cultures of violence; not just the one against women. There are a lot of cultures that dehumanize, not just the one that dehumanizes women. The talking heads on this subject take an unjustified position of universal and unique persecution. Men should look at women as people, while simultaniously the talking head saying it doesn't look at men as people.

And as to this narccissitic murderer. I've no doubt he was masogynist, but it's wrong to say that he was the product of that culture. I've seen this guy before. He's the two kids at Columbine. He's the postal worker that went after his bosses. He suffers from narccissism and a feeling of persecution (which may have at least some level of truth) and blames others for his misfortune. In Columbine it was jocks. With many, it's their boss or neighbor. For this kid it was women (among others: He also lashes out at a lack of friends. IIRC: The majority of his victims were male).

So yes: There's a real problem with a culture in the US that dehumanizes women. It's real. It's bad. It needs to be fixed. It is, however, not unique; and it is not the reason for this particular murder spree.

about 3 months ago
top

EA Ending Online Support For Dozens of Games

JerryLove Re:Seriously now (329 comments)

On the flip side: What would be the cost of running them on a "up as much as it's up" matchmaking VM. If there's so few people, the load should be trivial.

Heck: Why aren't these all using the same single match-making system with just game profiles?

Are any of these affected from a single-player POV? EA was a pioneer in "always call home' DRM.

about 4 months ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Does Your Job Need To Exist?

JerryLove Fewer workers or... (343 comments)

If we start with the premise that a 40-hour worker doesn't put in 40 hours (and I assume this is not talking about smoke breaks and bathroom breaks and such, but just really "browsing the internet to kill time" stuff)... how about shortening the work week?

And BTW: We *need* BS jobs. If we got really efficient, you can start to expect unemployment >20%.

Though if some of the BS jobs at my work would stop being sending me advertising in my email (seriously: in my building, which is only a few hundred employees, there are at least 4 whose full-time job seems to be telling me about hockey tickets, charity events, company socials, and Disney on ice)

about 4 months ago
top

The Feds Accidentally Mailed Part of A $350K Drone To Some College Kid

JerryLove Re:Stupid headline (157 comments)

Which begs the question: Why didn't the government ship USPS?

about 4 months ago
top

Oklahoma Botched an Execution With Untested Lethal Injection Drugs

JerryLove Re:Punishment fits the crime (1198 comments)

How about you drop the pretense that the issue is cost?

So the main argument tossed about the media against the death penalty is about the cost. That argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so you say, Forget about cost because even if it costs less to execute people it represents such a tiny fraction of the overall cost. Except that doesn't stand up because your 3000 death row inmates represent between $150 and $300 million per year, so despite it being just a small percentage of the overall tab it is still not a small amount of money. Maybe we save that cash and throw it education or urban blight? You like those things, right?

Just be honest about your argument: You are against the death penalty because you are simply against it.

1) Please feel free to argue with the media about what you assert the media said. I am not them.

2) Your comment is also out-of-context. The question was asked, and answered. You hack a straw man by pretending I was addressing something other than what I was.

3) I am not capable of tautological wants. It would be kinda cool if I could, but I cannot support or oppose something because I support or oppose it. I do require some reason for a position.

On to your post. *You* assert that we should kill people for the reason "it saves money".

OK. Let's kill all people, at arrest. Indeed: let's just have the arresting officer shoot them on the spot. That will save *far* more money than your plan will.

No? That's not your position? Then what is your position? What was that about honesty?

about 4 months ago
top

Oklahoma Botched an Execution With Untested Lethal Injection Drugs

JerryLove Re:Punishment fits the crime (1198 comments)

We have to pay for this monster to live for the rest of his life. We *all* pay taxes for that. It's expensive. Tell me how that doesn't affect us. A death-row inmate costs, what, $50-75-100K/yr to house and feed? We get no value from this. This is akin to toxic waste disposal. How many doctors, teachers, scientists can we hire for the amount of money we pay to house these people? How much further would we be as a society if we spent the money on getting ahead, not waste disposal

There are approximately 3,000 people on death row. I would imagine a liberal estimate, if we never killed any, would put mayby 10,000 people that might otherwise, eventually, be executed in prison for life.

As of 2011, there were 2,300,000 people in pirson.

So to answer your question as a percentage: We could save less than 00.5% of our prison budget... assuming executations themselves add $0 cost to the process, and assuming that those executions were carried out before even the trial happened. If you have trials, and waits, and there's a cost to the execution: we save less still.

And remember: these are based on grossly liberal estimates. If I just use current numbers, the savings is closer to 00.1% before lowerign it further with execution costs.

How about you drop the pretense that the issue is cost?

about 4 months ago
top

Netflix Confirms Deal For Access To Verizon's Network

JerryLove Re:web hosting isn't free (135 comments)

Check the IETF standards discussions for IPv6 and HTTP back in the 1990s. You might see that I've been groking (and designing) this internet thing for a while.

Openeing your response by poinding the table is not a good sign. (I started in the 1980s, so I win)

Where you're being tricked is that you don't realize Netflix is basically just asking for free web hosting. Free hosting for the highest bandwidth site in the world. Netflix is NOT a peer of Verizon, so their attempt to call their upstream connection "peering" is misleading.

You pay Verizon to connect YOU to the internet. Netflix wants to pay nobody to connect them to the internet. They wanted Verizon to provide them with free bandwidth by providing multi-gigabit connections for free. Sorry Netflix, if you want gigabits of upstream bandwidth you have to pay for it, just like the rest of us.

Actually: I pay Verizon for a connection to NetFlix. It's not something Verizon is being asked to provide for free.

Cogent (which has one of the highest-ranked connectivity degrees on the Internet) is who Verizon is failing to peer sufficiently with. They are not providing me the connectivity to the internet which I am paying them to provide. They likely would be falling over themselves to do so (perhaps going so far as to offer NetFlix that free access you assert) were they losing customers to other services that did offer such connectivity... but because of the duopoly, there's no competition for them to lose to.

For comparison: See Google Fiber's performance with NetFlix.

Let's take this to an extreme. Verizon cuts off all communication to everyone not paying them directly. That includes all other backbones (like Cogent, AT&T, UUNET, etc in the US and all foreign sites). All sites not directly paying Verizon from everywhere around the world stop working entirely.

Is that "internet access"?

What's the difference between "not working because of no connection" and "functionally not working because of deliberately insufficient connection"? Practically none.

about 4 months ago
top

Netflix Confirms Deal For Access To Verizon's Network

JerryLove Re:Not news. Netflix bought net connection like us (135 comments)

I'm not sure you've entirely grocked the idea of an "Internet" and are confusing it with an "Intranet".

Verizon has advertized that I can buy X amount of internet connection, and then (deliberately) failed to create the upstream connections to deliver on that promise. Netflix, one of those up-stream providers who pays Cogent for access to the internet, is now having to pay Verizon for access to its intranet which, according to my earlier statement, is supposed to be internet.

Now we all realize that bandwidth upstream isn't infinite. If everybody and their brother decided to attach to my server at home, they cannot expect that only their paid-for internet connection would determine their connection speed (as mine would come into play), and even at a peering level, congestion is an inevitability at some point.

But the goal of Verizon, in servicing its customers, is *supposed* to be doing the best it can to provide promised internet badnwith to locations that its customers are tyring to reach. We know they will not succeed perfectly.

The issue is when Verison begins to, for the sake of profit, selectively limit peering. They are no longer attempting to fulfill their promise to give me internet access at a given bandwidth. It is this willfulness that moves us from "the way the thing works" to our gripe with the way the major ISPs are operating.

Let me put this in a different context. If TWC suddenly solved all its problems with NetFlix in my area, and if the public at large was aware of this, there would be a migration from Verizon to TWC. At that point, Verizon would suddenly improve its peeing with Netflix.

The only reason they did not, is because they are duopoly and so did not have to. That's pretty-much the bright-line test for whether there is abuse.

ISPs should be common carrier.

about 4 months ago
top

Blood of World's Oldest Woman Hints At Limits of Life

JerryLove Re:Not an upper limit (333 comments)

So all my cells come from a single cell that was present in my mother at the time of her birth having all come from a single cell present in her mother at the time of her birth, etc, etc.

Because cells reproduce by binary fission, both "child cells" are the original cell. Therefore, every cell on the planet is as old as the first cell (unless cell genesis occurred more than once).

Anyone who asserts, therefore, that cells have a finite and resolute reproduction amount or lifespan is clearly wrong. Some individual cells may introduce mechanisms that age them (I'm sure many do); but all existing cells are billions of years old.

about 4 months ago
top

Aereo To SCOTUS: Shut Us Down and You Shut Down Cloud Storage

JerryLove Re:Missed Opportunity for Partnership, Dumb Models (342 comments)

As I see it, both parties are missing incredible opportunities.

Let's Judo-flip this conversation.

Broadcasters earn revenue from advertising. Aero is faithfully streaming content including all advertising to their customers. Clearly what is needed is a partnership for Aero to report viewer demographics back to broadcasters, who can pad onto their numbers when selling ads.

Aero is charging too little for their service. Their model is stupid. They are trying to counter cable carriers charging $50, 60, 100+/mo with a service that's $8 and $12. Aero should charge $29 and kick $15 per customer per month to the cable carrier(s) in the market in which each customer resides.

Cable provides more channels than Aero, which only gives you a way to shift the (usually 3-6) free channels. Pricing parity would make no sense.

Aero is then in the infrastructure business. The cable companies get build out absolutely free, without having to sink billions of dollars into last mile wiring of neighborhoods, and Aero gets massive revenue stream in a highly symbiotic relationship. For Aero customers, the cable company is is the content licensing and resale business - and the best part - they don't have to service & support those customers, Aero does.

Addtionally, if Aero has such a wonderful idea, there is nothing stopping Comcast from doing exactly the same thing. What is more expensive - the cost of bandwidth, or the cost of pulling copper, telephony or fiber to every house * N tens of millions of customers? Bandwidth is down for a few cents per gigabyte streamed now. How much does a nationwide fiber buildout cost?

This case is really about constipated thinking and reactionary fear in the face of changing climate.

How does one get badnwidth without copper/fiber/cable again?

Why doesn't big cable do the same? Because they don't want to compete for audinece... they want to have captive audience.

about 4 months ago
top

Lytro Illum Light-Field Camera Lets You Refocus Pictures Later

JerryLove Re:Still hoping they make a movie camera (129 comments)

For still photography, focus isn't a terribly hard problem to solve. Autofocus works, and DSLRs let you compose, focus, and shoot manually as well. Easy peasy.

Depends on what you are shooting and what you are shooting with. Bird moving through foliage at low F value? AF is likely to grab foliage. Something really close to camera and moving randomly? That can be a problem too. Baby waving arms... make sure you get focus to the face: AF (esp phase-focus) is likely to get the nearest object rather than the correct one. Contrast focus (and phase focus on-sensore, as with Canon 70D) can add face / eye detect, but (except the 70D) at the cost of speed (so moving objects are a problem again).

about 4 months ago
top

Mozilla CEO Firestorm Likely Violated California Law

JerryLove Re:Bu the wasn't fired (1116 comments)

Begs an odd question.

The employer didn't not intentionally create nor knowingly permit. The problem with this CEO stemmed from the outside world.

The proximate cause to want to end his employment (yes, I realize that in actuality he quit) was the disruption in the workplace from the outside.

That the source of this disruption was the customer base, and that the cause for their displeasure was political seems not germain to whether the company itself would have been acting in a legal manner should it have been a firing. The obvious question I would put before the law is "can a company be forced to keep an ineffective employee merely because that ineffectiveness is in some way, outside the control of the company, tied to their politics".

Though I have to wonder if this means, in CA, a company can be forced to keep a KKK member or neo-nazi even if they are, for example, a minority outreach non-profit or houacaust museam.

about 5 months ago
top

NASA Laying Foundation For Jupiter Moon Space Mission

JerryLove Re:Permanent Habitat? (100 comments)

Distance.
- Fuel
- Time in microgravity
Radiation exposure enroute (in fairness, a problem for Mars)
No aerobreaking to land (though perhaps mitigated by lower gravity)
No idea how to get through ice, or what would happen when you did.
Contamination.
Pressure.
Stopping radiation = no radio.
Etc.

When we can have permenant habitats in the deep desert: then we can talk about feasability offworld. The moon is really a no-brainer starting point because of the(relative) ease of short-duration missions and resupply.

about 5 months ago
top

Tesla: A Carmaker Or Grid-Storage Company?

JerryLove So if they (GM/whomever) wanted to buy the company (151 comments)

First they would need to lower the stock somehow... perhaps sewing FUD over 2 fires. If that doesn't work, maybe some campaign about how bad batteries are. That would make them aquireable... if it worked.

about 5 months ago

Submissions

JerryLove hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

JerryLove has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>