Is it just me, or is white on a dark background a terrible way to render text for any length of time spent actually reading?
I'm genuinely interested to know whether other Slashdotters experience "lines" burned into their vision from reading Wired and other sites like it. When I look away from the screen I can still tell that I've been reading something with horrible contrast options.
It's 2016, is it really necessary to do the whole "you're a 1337 hax0r because you used d@rk backgr0undz" thing?
"The word 'novel' now appears in more than 7% of PubMed paper titles and abstracts, and the researchers jokingly extrapolate that, on the basis of its past rise, it is set to appear in every paper by the year 2123."
It strikes me that in the next few years at least, this is only going to accelerate. My (UK) university's internal review procedures require you to "emphasize the novelty." The abstracts of almost all of the papers in journals I actually read (respect?) contain some description of the novelty, regardless of how small the incremental advance in performance is. This seems unavoidable since your paper must be different to other peoples' work and you must spell out to the editor how this condition is met.
As for self-promotion, I think you'd have to be an idiot to not self-promote to some extent. Job security in academia looks pretty flimsy from where I sit (surrounded by PhDs and post-docs). Publish often, otherwise you can get out of academia.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to do a spin-off of this study examining "impact."
I suspect that in the UK at least, being killed by a "Death Adder" would be enough to get your insurance claim rejected on grounds of negligence.
"You knew it was called a *death* adder right? What outcome were you expecting by going near it?"
Some Slashdotters would rightly point out if you can't claim under reasonable circumstances then you shouldn't be sold the insurance (Death Adder insurance should cover encounters with Death Adders). Unfortunately, large institutions in the UK already have a track record of knowingly mis-selling you stuff they know won't cover you (Payment Protection Insurance for students and the unemployed... neither of these groups were covered under PPI but the banks still sold it).
From BBC news: the Home Secretary said, "They would only be able to make a request for the purpose of determining whether someone had for example accessed a communications website, an illegal website or to resolve an IP [internet protocol] address where it is necessary and proportionate to do so in the course of a specific investigation."
Tell me minister, what's a non-communications website? Last I heard, communications meant literally any situation where information is transferred, from checking rugby scores on Ceefax to weather forecasts in the newspaper to double glazing adverts via snail mail. Call me old-fashioned, but I specifically go on the web to discover information.
As far as I can tell, access to IEEE journals isn't any better than that of Elsevier if your institution doesn't have the cash to pay for the particular journal you want to read. If you're a private citizen forget it, you're not going to fork over the $35 or whatever it is per article just to maintain an interest in the latest bleeding edge technologies.
I'm doing a PhD at a leading UK engineering institution, and the view there is if you publish in something other than an IEEE journal you've failed. The stuff we publish by default becomes closed off to the majority of the literate public. Someone already posted the reasons Elsevier are singled out for criticism (http://thecostofknowledge.com/) but since most ACs won't read the details and limit the argument to equating paywall to evil, we really ought to start bashing IEEE publishing - which I would gamble many Slashdotters might actually want to read.
... until at least sometime after the Year 3000. We already have the video evidence that robots of the future struggle to get up when placed on their backs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sNMHdaJx5c&feature=youtu.be&t=5m17s).
It has one very obvious thing to do with the turing test: failing to distinguish software from another human being.
I regularly fail to distinguish Daily Mail headlines from their automatically generated counterparts. Come to think of it, I've never met a real, breathing Daily Mail headline writer...
http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/d...
TFA makes no mention of any kind of Quality of Service support. It's still 802.11, so I guess there wouldn't be (since it's not 802.11e).
Given that the 802.11 MAC efficiency tops out at around PHY = 100 Mbps and doesn't really increase thereafter because of collisions (or overheads from preventing collisions), it's probably time we looked for MAC efficiency over PHY rates, as supported in 802.16.
But hey, PHY rates let you put a BIGGER NUMBER on the box which means we can SELL FASTER INTERNETS.
One of LogMeIn's other products, LogMeIn Hamachi, goes beyond bog-standard remote desktop access.
Hamachi provides VPNs that are easy to set up, and AFAIK pretty secure out of the box (in relative terms). As a teenager, my friends and I used to use Hamachi to play *ahem* patched copies of games in LAN mode, over the internet. As with any VPN, there are better uses, and clearly you can make your own DIY solution but Hamachi was just so damned convenient.
Over time though, previously free features have been dropped, and I imagine free access will stop altogether, if it hasn't already.
that sending Snake all the way back to the blast furnance and that freezing warehouse to change the shape of the PAL override shape-memory alloy key was a waste of time.
Damn it, Kojima!
Slashdot Mirror
"Didn't lose a single Mario"
Who the hell is Mario? This is Donkey Kong. Did you mean Jumpman?
Is it just me, or is white on a dark background a terrible way to render text for any length of time spent actually reading? I'm genuinely interested to know whether other Slashdotters experience "lines" burned into their vision from reading Wired and other sites like it. When I look away from the screen I can still tell that I've been reading something with horrible contrast options. It's 2016, is it really necessary to do the whole "you're a 1337 hax0r because you used d@rk backgr0undz" thing?
"... unless an abnormal situation occurs. Which now did."
North Korea's fiery rhetoric may project some laughably inaccurate claims, but at least the grammar is better than that of a Slashdot editor.
"The word 'novel' now appears in more than 7% of PubMed paper titles and abstracts, and the researchers jokingly extrapolate that, on the basis of its past rise, it is set to appear in every paper by the year 2123."
It strikes me that in the next few years at least, this is only going to accelerate. My (UK) university's internal review procedures require you to "emphasize the novelty." The abstracts of almost all of the papers in journals I actually read (respect?) contain some description of the novelty, regardless of how small the incremental advance in performance is. This seems unavoidable since your paper must be different to other peoples' work and you must spell out to the editor how this condition is met.
As for self-promotion, I think you'd have to be an idiot to not self-promote to some extent. Job security in academia looks pretty flimsy from where I sit (surrounded by PhDs and post-docs). Publish often, otherwise you can get out of academia.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to do a spin-off of this study examining "impact."
I suspect that in the UK at least, being killed by a "Death Adder" would be enough to get your insurance claim rejected on grounds of negligence.
"You knew it was called a *death* adder right? What outcome were you expecting by going near it?"
Some Slashdotters would rightly point out if you can't claim under reasonable circumstances then you shouldn't be sold the insurance (Death Adder insurance should cover encounters with Death Adders). Unfortunately, large institutions in the UK already have a track record of knowingly mis-selling you stuff they know won't cover you (Payment Protection Insurance for students and the unemployed... neither of these groups were covered under PPI but the banks still sold it).
From BBC news: the Home Secretary said, "They would only be able to make a request for the purpose of determining whether someone had for example accessed a communications website, an illegal website or to resolve an IP [internet protocol] address where it is necessary and proportionate to do so in the course of a specific investigation."
Tell me minister, what's a non-communications website? Last I heard, communications meant literally any situation where information is transferred, from checking rugby scores on Ceefax to weather forecasts in the newspaper to double glazing adverts via snail mail. Call me old-fashioned, but I specifically go on the web to discover information.
There was a Slashdot poll a few years ago, asking the question "What percentage of your traffic is encrypted?"
The answer that stuck in my mind was from a guy who said, "all of it. My WiFi has WPA2."
"In addition, jailbreaking is now extended to tablets, wearables, and smart TVs, but not to single-purpose devices like e-readers."
Given that my Kindle Paperwhite has a web browser built-in, by what measure is it a single-purpose device?
"Quoting the abstract should to be enough" Business as usual on /. then.
As far as I can tell, access to IEEE journals isn't any better than that of Elsevier if your institution doesn't have the cash to pay for the particular journal you want to read. If you're a private citizen forget it, you're not going to fork over the $35 or whatever it is per article just to maintain an interest in the latest bleeding edge technologies. I'm doing a PhD at a leading UK engineering institution, and the view there is if you publish in something other than an IEEE journal you've failed. The stuff we publish by default becomes closed off to the majority of the literate public. Someone already posted the reasons Elsevier are singled out for criticism (http://thecostofknowledge.com/) but since most ACs won't read the details and limit the argument to equating paywall to evil, we really ought to start bashing IEEE publishing - which I would gamble many Slashdotters might actually want to read.
I've heard of spies concealing cyanide in their teeth, but I never imagined the MPAA would resort to similar tactics to hide information.
... oh wait.
... until at least sometime after the Year 3000. We already have the video evidence that robots of the future struggle to get up when placed on their backs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sNMHdaJx5c&feature=youtu.be&t=5m17s).
It has one very obvious thing to do with the turing test: failing to distinguish software from another human being.
I regularly fail to distinguish Daily Mail headlines from their automatically generated counterparts. Come to think of it, I've never met a real, breathing Daily Mail headline writer... http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/d...
TFA makes no mention of any kind of Quality of Service support. It's still 802.11, so I guess there wouldn't be (since it's not 802.11e). Given that the 802.11 MAC efficiency tops out at around PHY = 100 Mbps and doesn't really increase thereafter because of collisions (or overheads from preventing collisions), it's probably time we looked for MAC efficiency over PHY rates, as supported in 802.16. But hey, PHY rates let you put a BIGGER NUMBER on the box which means we can SELL FASTER INTERNETS.
It's a viscous cycle
Maybe we should sticky this.
One of LogMeIn's other products, LogMeIn Hamachi, goes beyond bog-standard remote desktop access. Hamachi provides VPNs that are easy to set up, and AFAIK pretty secure out of the box (in relative terms). As a teenager, my friends and I used to use Hamachi to play *ahem* patched copies of games in LAN mode, over the internet. As with any VPN, there are better uses, and clearly you can make your own DIY solution but Hamachi was just so damned convenient. Over time though, previously free features have been dropped, and I imagine free access will stop altogether, if it hasn't already.
that sending Snake all the way back to the blast furnance and that freezing warehouse to change the shape of the PAL override shape-memory alloy key was a waste of time. Damn it, Kojima!