Slashdot Mirror

I still want to know what's behind the door

the case-sensitve file system was one of the major risk factors.

Don't worry, as XKCD shows, this is not an issue.

If it weren't for the big-ass herd, the first group would quickly be eaten by bears. Since they're not, we just have to deal with their hand-wringing.

First of all: big ass-herd. It was calling out to me.

Second, bears don't eat whiners. Too fattening. Bears prefer lean meat. So since we can't count on bears to take care of the problem, let's just shoot the whiners. That's why we have all those bear arms, right?

suddenly "cheapass-hosting-services.com" stops looking like such a great deal.

Move the first hyphen one word to the left.

http://xkcd.com/37/

Ob. XKCD

I've done some image processing work.. It seems to me that you can take the output of this Neural network and correlate it with some other image processing routines, like feature detection, feature meteorology, etc; A conditional probability based decision chain,etc.

I work on a LIDAR sensor meant for Anti-. I work at a start-up that makes 3D laser-radar vision sensors for robotics and autonomous vehicles /anti-collision avoidance. The other day, I learned that such sensors allow robots to augment their camera vision systems to have a better understanding of their environment. It turns out that it's still an unsolved problem for a computer vision systems to unambiguously recognize that it's looking at a bird or a cat, and can only give you probabilities.. A LIDAR sensor instantly gives you a depth measurement out to several hundred meters that you can correlate your images to . The computer can combine the color information, along with depth information to have a much better idea of what it's looking at. For an anti-collision avoidance system, it has to be certain what it's looking at, and that cameras alone aren't good enough. I find it pretty exciting to be working on something that is useful for AI (artificial intelligence) research. One guy I work with got his Ph.D using Microsoft's Kinect sensor, which is something that gives robots depth perception for close-up environments..

“In the 60s, Marvin Minsky (a well known AI researcher from MIT, whom Isaac Asimov considered one of the smartest people he ever met) assigned a couple of undergrads to spend the summer programming a computer to use a camera to identify objects in a scene. He figured they'd have the problem solved by the end of the summer. Half a century later, we're still working on it.”

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/ta...

With that kind of track record, the goons don't even need to bother with the $5 wrench.

Obligatory What-If XKCD: http://what-if.xkcd.com/12/

They are claimed by big ass oil companies.

Obligatory.

[quote]In an effort that may run afoul of the first amendment,[/quote]
First amendment has nothing to do with this. The first amendment protects from criminal government prosecution, not reactions from private individuals/entities.

Here's a very good explanation - http://www.xkcd.com/1357/

With 50 euro for a power supply, 100 for a sensor conditioning module (without the sensors!), 300 for a base station and 800 for a complete starter pack, I don't care if it is open source or not, it is way out of budget for the casual hobbyist. There are already enough different alternatives, most of which appear to be vapourware. Home automation seems easy enough that many people who follow the IoT hype start their own project. But we don't need more standards, we need less. The best would be if one of the existing protocols (not necessary that one) would win, so that people could mix and match their own components, which don't have to be more fancy than some arduinos and RPis thrown together.

and China's one child policy is probably the best long term action for the environment.

And yet, in most developed first world countries, birth rates have pretty much plateaued, or are on the way there. The US, China, Japan, Singapore, Russia, most of Europe - all currently below population sustaining birth rates at the moment. Check out this chart, sorted by fertility rates from lowest to highest. You can likely notice a clear trend between the upper portions of the chart and the lower regions.

Economics and education (especially of women) is the key, not police state policies that encroach on more of our personal liberties. We need to get everyone to first-world economic status as fast as we can, because then:

1) People will stop pumping out kids en mass, since at that point they're an economic liability, not an advantage, and
2) People will start caring more about the environment when they're not trying to figure out where they'll get they're next meal, or if they will have a roof over their heads tomorrow.

Seriously, exploding population was the boogieman twenty or thirty years ago. If we forecast using today's trends, it seems pretty likely that the world's population will most likely peak and then decline. Take a look at the actual data trends (the recent ones - and don't extrapolate linearly), then draw your own conclusions.

...if nothing at the XKCD store appeals to you, that is...

Stick one of these in a box. Label the box "Office chair". Stand back and watch the fun.

And for those less familiar with XKCD, print out a card with that comic to go with the box. It might still work.

...if nothing at the XKCD store appeals to you, that is...

Stick one of these in a box. Label the box "Office chair". Stand back and watch the fun.

And for those less familiar with XKCD, print out a card with that comic to go with the box. It might still work.

Listen to yourself

Obligatory http://xkcd.com/538/

Willful ignorance.
http://xkcd.com/1379

In this industry, there's no such thing as a "replacement," it's "just another competing format." None of the old formats ever dies, all we ever get is more new formats, all of which need to be supported, ultimately making everything more complicated. I'm not saying we shouldn't advance... but the belief that some new format you create will replace something instead of muddying the existing pool of formats is laughable. related xdcd. (yes, I know it's "standards" and not "formats," but the result is the same)

and don't forget http://xkcd.com/927/

Etzioni's article is basically a long form of saying "Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/793/".

This problem sounds suspiciously familiar... queue obligatory XKCD reference in 3... 2... 1...

http://xkcd.com/810/

Not for quite a while. As someone who has worked in robotics, I would say the scenario for the next several decades would resemble XKCD's What-If on the robot apocalypse.

How do you find a judge to 'take the case' until you've already filed a law suit?
I'm not sure you're familiar with the process of filing a law suit. And who is to say it's frivolous? You? Are we to forward you all law suits for preapproval?
No; this is how the legal system is suppose to work.
You are allowed to file a case for whatever you want. You can sue for more money then exists on earth if you want. http://what-if.xkcd.com/96/
Now what can and normally happens in these cases is the defendant will file their answer saying something to the effect of 'This person is crackpot' and file a motion to dismiss. The judge agrees. Bing bang boom the case is gone.

So really once Comcast files their answer to something of the effect; "It's in their contract we're allowed to do this" and the judge doesn't drop it then maybe you'll have something to whine about. But till then complaining about someone 'filing a lawsuit against comcast' is like complaining about the people that sue the FBI for stealing their brain waves.

C-x M-c M-butterfly

http://xkcd.com/378/

Yes, I'm sure you read everything he wrote by time you graduated eighth grade, and can compare it to your new favorite author now. Good for you.

Or did you just read a couple Xanth books and the first Space Tyrant book and decide he wasn't serious enough for you?

Fuck computational linguists!

When someone thinks the standard isn't working....

How many years after the OpenOffice fork are there people still thinking what's OpenOffice vs LibreOffice? How many years past Oracle giving the keys to the source repository to OpenOffice do we still think OpenOffice vs LibreOffice

When it comes between slogging through a new architecture, or dealing with people, usually the new architecure is easier and almost always more fun. One advantage to paid projects (note: before mod down, this is a single advantage, not me saying paid is better or worse) the money can make people stick to a single project and not fork, meaning we have more consistency in interfaces. On a fork you may get goodness like the gcc/egcs split where the fork is so much better it becomes the mainline, or you might get the emacs/Xemacs split which is still an issue a decade plus out.

I use Lastpass. I get it to auto-generate random 16+ character passwords with a mix of alpha, numeric, upper / lower and special chars. The passwords are totally impossible to remember. Each password is totally unique to the site. I Then let it log me into everything after I give it my very long, easy to remember pass-phrase.

XKCD: https://xkcd.com/936/

Less than 300 years ago the fastest method of transportation was horse and buggey and sail ships on the Ocean. In 300 years we now can put ships in space that can travel at 87,000 mph (143kph)... Imagine if you can how fast we'll be able to travel in space another 300 years from now.

Obligatory XKCD

http://xkcd.com/936/

XKCD already did a better job on just this issue.

          http://xkcd.com/936/

Slow down there, buckwheat.

The speed of light is a universal constant, and it doesn't actually make much sense to talk about exceeding it. You break causality and travel backwards in time. If you are sure that these problems can be overcome you have no idea what the problem is. Relativity is a description of the geometry of the universe, and explicitly covers what happens if you try to go really fast. It has been verified to a ridiculous number of decimal places. What you're talking about is equivalent to talking about exceeding the Planck constant or the fine structure constant.

Science fiction is easier and more fun to read than science, but you should probably spend some time reading about this universe, because you're gonna be here for a while.

For a rectangle, A is the area, W is the width, H is the height.

A = W x H. Do you deny that that's an equation? Good.

So what makes it suddenly *not* be an equation if W is about a cubit and H is roughly the width of my butt?

You pose the question incorrectly. What if I assert that the area of a rectangle is:
A = W^2 * 1/H + the Boltzmann constant

Hooray for my "equation"! How about this women = problems "equation" that also satisfies your definition of an equation:
http://killinks.com/wp-content...

If you want to debate semantics, it's a losing game.

Besides, how has no one posted the pithy XKCD definition of the Drake Equation? http://xkcd.com/384/

I can't believe I'm the first to remind everyone of this: http://xkcd.com/936

Obligatory

Are you sure you want your kid be like this?
http://xkcd.com/242/

If yes:
http://xkcd.com/585/

Are you sure you want your kid be like this?
http://xkcd.com/242/

If yes:
http://xkcd.com/585/

I think Randall Munroe is following this thread. Todays XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1455/ :)

I would have to interact with programmers. Even though I am a technical person, the last thing I want to do when I get home is take orders or get silence from developers that don't respect people with other skills.

Related xkcd, physicist or programmer, the resulting frustration is the same.

This kind of comment is deeply ignorant and anti-science. RelativWe have started using the properties of the EM spectrum for the bity is a description of the geometry of the universe. If you would rather believe in your own personal fantasies instead of one of the most well-supported theories in science, congratulations, you are yet another variety of religious loon.

Look, it's pretty simple. Science is not magic, and there is shit that it says that is for real-real not for play-play. We don't know what the future will look like in 2050 or 2100, but we can be completely sure of three things:

1) There will be no violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
2) Nothing (for all important values of nothing) will travel faster than the speed of light.
3) Commercial fusion power will still be 20 years out.

The first two are immutable laws of physics, the final one was proven by a Dr. M. T. Budget. Humor aside, relativity and thermodynamics have been proven at both the largest and smallest scales that humans have been able to observe, and at every level in between. They are not perfect theories, but they do place very hard and very real constraints on what kind of rabbits you can pull out of a given hat. You will not go to intergalactic space today, nor tomorrow, nor while anything recognizable as human exists.

Today's technology would look like magic for anyone living 300+ years ago. Most of the physics describing the universe today are theories and postulations supported by mathematical models that are theoretical in nature themselves. That is not the stablest platform from which to categorically rule out what is possible and what is not possible. The entirety of human existence is tiny and insignificant when compared to the age of the universe surrounding us. Human existence is tiny and just as insignificant when compared to the age of the planet we live on. It's a little early to start making definitive statements on what is possible and what is not impossible.

This kind of comment is deeply ignorant and anti-science. Relativity is a description of the geometry of the universe. If you would rather believe in your own personal fantasies instead of one of the most well-supported theories in science, congratulations, you are yet another variety of religious loon.

Look, it's pretty simple. Science is not magic, and there is shit that it says that is for real-real not for play-play. We don't know what the future will look like in 2050 or 2100, but we can be completely sure of three things:

1) There will be no violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
2) Nothing (for all important values of nothing) will travel faster than the speed of light.
3) Commercial fusion power will still be 20 years out.

The first two are immutable laws of physics, the final one was proven by a Dr. M. T. Budget. Humor aside, relativity and thermodynamics have been proven at both the largest and smallest scales that humans have been able to observe, and at every level in between. They are not perfect theories, but they do place very hard and very real constraints on what kind of rabbits you can pull out of a given hat. You will not go to intergalactic space today, nor tomorrow, nor while anything recognizable as human exists.

P.S.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/119/

That shows mathematically how difficult it is to hit something LARGER than your projectile, when you're actually aiming to do so.

Oops, sorry forgot link. Lol

http://what-if.xkcd.com/119/

XKCD would like to have a word with you on matters regarding sheep.

XKCD would like to have a word with you on matters regarding sheep.

XKCD would like to have a word with you on matters regarding sheep.

I think the answer to that one is "all over the map". Certain aspects of open source are done with excessive attention to niche functionality because there's either funding or the kind of geeky details that have nerds jumping all over it to implement. Other features, particularly features you'd use if you're a... less than tech-savvy user, tend to be ignored. Obligatory XKCD. On the bright side, it's not like code actually rots so the resource problem can be rephrased as how quickly does the environment change with new hardware and languages and libraries and standards and protocols and so on. Not to mention input paradigms like multi-touch versus keyboard and mouse. Eventually it has to slow down. PCIe has existed longer than any of the standards that preceded it. USB has lasted longer than than the standards that preceded it. H.264 has lasted longer than any of the standards that preceded it. Now we've got computers that can fit into the palm of our hands, how much smaller and different could they get? I guess sci-fi isn't out of ideas yet but if keyboard and mouse has gotten us through the last 30 years I expect touch to last longer and what follows touch even longer.

Another perspective is simply considering if the users' needs are going to rise infinitely, which I suppose is a special case of the above. Just because Photoshop continues to add features doesn't mean that people need photo editing of infinite complexity. It might simply be that once you've reached a certain level of functionality open source is good enough for most people on a fairly permanent basis. I know at least a few tools that I more or less consider "done", like just recently I installed Babaschess which was last updated in 2007, it's abandoned yet fully functional. I have QuickPar installed, which hasn't been updated since 2004 yet I also consider "done". With open source people like to fiddle with it but there as well there's software which has been essentially unchanged for years. The pace might be glacial at times but ultimately I think open source will win out. Just look at Linux/BSD, Windows is the only one with a homegrown kernel and I suspect that's mostly history. I doubt Microsoft would start writing another kernel from scratch today.

Sorry if I came off as abrasive; I aim for humour, not insult. Any teasing is meant in good fun ^_^

First off, probably the majority of successful coders are largely or fully self-taught. This comes to mind. Don't worry about not having professors to hold your hand, but do make sure you take time to study the 'boring' parts like theory, testing and optimization.

If you're getting into iOS development today, you'd be wrong to pass up Swift. It may not be perfect yet but every language has flaws, and Swift will at least be actively improved.

On the other hand, any developer needs to know C reasonably well. C is a window on your computer; when you learn to write in C, you learn how your computer works and how to think like it does. Since most software design mistakes come from *not* thinking like a computer, it's a very valuable skill. Once you've learned C you'll know 95% of Obj-C, so you might as well learn it too.

So I guess my answer to your original question: 'Objective-C vs. Swift?' is... 'yes'. Sorry. To be perfectly honest, the more languages you can learn the better a programmer you'll be. Virtually every language will give you "aha!" moments and new concepts and patterns to put into your toolkit. But since no one has unlimited time, there are a few obvious choices:

C, of course, since it teaches you good practices and most languages inherit from it. Learn C and you'll be halfway to anywhere.
Javascript, too; it's a flawed but unique and interesting language and, more importantly, ubiquitous especially where the Internet is involved. Don't leave home without it.
Swift, Java or C#: Pick one. Your OO heavy hitter for general application development on iOS/OSX, Android, and Windows, respectively. They have a fair amount in common so porting between them usually isn't that difficult, though cross-platform products like Xamarin also exist.
Ruby or Python: Good combinations of classic and modern concepts, clean and organized. Great for 'agile' development, these are the 3D printers of the programming world: You can rapidly prototype your designs, and the results are good enough for many applications.
If you can fit it in, Clojure. Functional programming is incredibly powerful but too easy to ignore in most languages. Dive in with a Lisp dialect and expand your mind; your code will thank me.

You don't have to master all of them before you start coding on your own, of course. Like an instrument, play and learn and play and learn and play.

What do you mean? There were only three Star Wars movies. They came out in 1977, 80, and 83.

... there's not enough paint to paint the Earth:

According to the report The State of the Global Coatings Industry, the world produced 34 billion liters of paints and coatings in 2012. ...

If we assume paint production has, in recent decades, followed the economy and grown at about 3% per year, that means the total amount of paint produced equals the current yearly production times 34.[6]\((1+\tfrac{1}{0.03})\) That comes out to a little over a trillion liters of paint. At 30 square meters per gallon, "Square meters per gallon" is a pretty obnoxious unit, but I think it's not quite as bad as acre-foot (a foot by a chain by a furlong), which is an actual unit used in technical papers I was trying to read this week. that's enough to cover 9 trillion square meters—about the area of the United States.

So the answer is no; there's not enough paint to cover the Earth's land, and—at this rate—probably won't be enough until the year 2100.