Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Stop accepting takedown notices from BSers (Score 1) 81

That's the beauty of cutting them off from the automated submission system after a very low threshold of bogus submissions (by percentage, quantity, or a combination).

It doesn't matter if they have an ulterior motive, they're shut down and have to pay a premium going forward... which means if they want to keep it up they'll be paying Google to employ extra verifiers and nobody else is affected.

Comment It seems obvious that... (Score 5, Insightful) 81

DMCA takedown requests for non-existent URLs, especially at a 99.97% invalid rate, should be evidence that the requestor is not properly verifying their DMCA claims and should:

A) Lose their right to continue to submit 'trusted' DMCA takedown requests

B) Be charged under the DMCA for filing false claims.

But we know that will never happen.

Comment Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score 5, Insightful) 319

I have to disagree. To me, "a fair amount of success comes down to technique, not the written protocol" means you're not documenting your protocol adequately.

It would certainly be fair to say that some manual actions could take a lot of practice before the experimenter would likely be skilled enough to perform them, but there shouldn't be anything missing from the protocol documentation that someone attempting to reproduce the results would have to learn from scratch.

Excepting well-established standard practices of the field, of course. You don't have to teach from kindergarten up to post-grad.

I'm no bio researcher, but I am an IT guy and we could fill a library with books on substandard documentation making it difficult for others to follow in our footsteps.

Comment It can't work. (Score 2) 192

>The technology, called Perspective, will review comments and score them based on how similar they are to comments people said were "toxic" or likely to make them leave a conversation.

Experience shows that toxic comments encourage participation as they simultaneously reduce participant satisfaction.

You want customers hitting F5 and (hopefully) seeing more ads on your site? Get people's egos involved and get them competing and hating on each other.

Comment Re:I know I'm being selfish, but... (Score 1) 329

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

It's a beautiful thought, but unfortunately it is completely incompatible with human nature, which is evolution's response to reality. Resources are scarce and everyone's competing for them to ensure their genes survive. Part of that creates greed, envy, and hoarding... consumer culture.

I'm sitting here conversing with people around the world, in a climate-controlled environment, with what's probably a pretty impressive understanding of my world (a world I've travelled) and universe given the limitations of my brain. I'm not worried about my next meal.

Since I'm NOT worried about whether the Gods are going to punish me, not worried about whether I'll make a kill on the next hunt, or if the flint spear I have will be good enough for the job... I'd say our system's working out fairly well. There's always room for improvement, though.

Comment Re:I know I'm being selfish, but... (Score 1, Offtopic) 329

>the newest wonder-tech is generally always presumed to be 20 years away.

I think one of the most disappointing parts of growing up was discovering that. And also that the most popular 'wonder-tech' was almost always bullshit from the very start. When I was a kid, it was flying cars, and unlocking psychic powers. Now it's flying cars and warp drives.

Comment Re:I think its time we hack space travel. (Score 1) 272

>My suspicion is if you were willing to travel slow enough (or endure some time debt by accelerating and decelerating slowly to the speed of light), you'd have no problems getting to another star, patent free, using apollo era technology.

Look up Project Orion. Nuclear pulse propulsion that can get you up to around 5% of c, and it's likely there are not a lot of patents around the idea of riding a nuclear blast wave. You'll have a lot of trouble getting the nuclear material, though. Or building the massive ship required to safely ride the shockwaves. Anyway, that would get you to the nearest star in around 80 years.

Now, a fusion rocket (which we have yet to perfect, but is scientifically feasible) could go twice as fast, and would likely come loaded with patents.

Warp drives, like the EM drive, are impossible, and solar sails aren't practical for ships large enough to sustain humans on multi-generational missions. If we could even build such ships yet, because right now you'd probably be dead within a decade due to environmental collapse if not a lot sooner.

Comment Re:Coding requirements (Score 1) 329

>Isn't writing out requirements in a way a computer can understand the essence of any programming language that has ever existed? So how is this any different?

It would seem this is another layer of abstraction that will make programming easier.

I would guess that there will still be a language to learn so you can give instructions to the computer and get optimal results. If they do it correctly, it's possible there will be a whole lot of details a human will no longer have to track... except when you have to debug the code, of course.

Comment I know I'm being selfish, but... (Score 5, Insightful) 329

Can we just hold progress back another 40 years or so? I'd like to be cold in my grave before the world changes so much I can no longer find my place in it.

Also, the massive social upheaval during the transition period between our current system and whatever replaces it is likely to be extremely unpleasant for the average person.

Comment Re:Makes Sense (Score 1) 198

> many moons would become planets

They could be satellite planets. Just as we now have dwarf planets, rogue planets, terrestrial planets, and gas giant planets.

For objects like Pluto vs. those like Earth, we could use a terms like 'major' and 'minor' (eliminating the term 'dwarf') to denote those bodies that 'dominate their orbit' or whatever measure the current definition of planet uses. Yes, this would involve also messing with the current definition of 'minor planet'.

I really do like the idea of a more or less empirical definition. Has gravity crushed it into a ball, and has it ever undergone fusion? Yes and no? Good. It's a planet. Now let's move on to the details, like what, if anything, it is orbiting, whether it's a tiny rock or a big ball of gas, and if it's the only significant object in its orbit.

Comment Re:Let's set up a telescope array on the moon now (Score 1) 272

>And orbiting has one *huge* benefit over anything built on a planetoid - you can keep your telescope pointed at the same spot indefinitely without any seismic disturbances

Except that Earth orbit involves having the Earth block your view a lot of the time, and the Moon can block or blind you, too.

Solar orbit is a lot less convenient for repair missions, but you can get much, much longer undisturbed exposure times if that's what you're looking for.

Slashdot Top Deals

We were so poor we couldn't afford a watchdog. If we heard a noise at night, we'd bark ourselves. -- Crazy Jimmy

Working...