Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Cyclops, use your eyebeams! (Score 2, Interesting) 255

Maybe your frames are different, maybe you have a big nose, maybe your theater uses differently sized 3D glasses, who knows!

Come to think of it, if you use big framed glasses do they have a separate nosepiece? Mine are small, thin glasses, but the nosepiece adds extra space to them. It's not the glasses pressing into my face, it's the nosepiece on my nose.

If I ever go to another 3D showing, I'm tempted to take the lenses from the 3D glasses and attempt to make them into a clip-on. That'd solve the annoyance of the big frames and mean I only have to wear one pair of glasses!

Comment Haven't upgraded for a minor nitpick (Score 1) 261

This sounds like a nice feature. My flash and other processes don't crash on me often, but when they do they can be frustrating. There was one thing that kept me on firefox 3.5 rather than 3.6, though.

It's really silly, but.. when I use the autoscroll (middle click) and am slowly scrolling down through a page, I like to use the mousewheel to scroll faster occasionally, or back up a little bit, while the scroll is still moving. In 3.6 I found that moving the mousewheel canceled the autoscroll. This is also a problem because my mousewheel's a bit sensitive, so sometimes just brushing it would cancel autoscroll.

Anybody know if there's a way to change that behavior so mousewheel doesn't cancel autoscroll, or if it's been reverted in a later 3.6 release?

Comment Re:Very popular (Score 1) 136

I've had the same experience. The only people I used to talk to on it have moved to other IM services, and now it's just the occasional spammer. I don't really know why I keep it logged in.

My account's a 7-digit UIN starting with 9, haha. I must've had this account for around 10 years.

Comment It Just Disgusts Me (Score 2, Insightful) 419

Why is it that liberal's answer to every problem is to throw more money at it? Certainly if we cut all other spending to the bone we could fund individual tutors for every student, free laptops, massages, anything. The question is this: who's responsibility is it to ensure students work hard and strive to achieve excellence? THE PARENTS. Not the government. End of story.

No amount of government spending can make up for bad parenting. Entitlement spending is a deep, dark, bottomless hole.

Not only that, but forcing another year of high school on smart students seems like punishment. I'm sure most of us can recall horror stories of our own public education (if we're from the US and went to public school) and, at the time, wanted nothing more than to get the hell outta dodge. After all, if the public education system has failed, why force another year of it onto the students to "train" them? That sounds to me to seem more like the real problem in our society: Punish those who succeed.

If nothing else, he should be advocating less time in high school. Place them in accelerated programs and graduate them early, give them scholarships to university--anything--but get them out of the public education system as quickly as possible. After all, if the students are "brainy," chances are they're more well motivated and organized than their peers and need to be challenge. Only university can provide them with the challenge they need.

You're right, though. It does smack of the entitlement mindset. I think it's really rather disgusting, because the system is so broken and rewards mediocrity so much more that forcing extra time for "more training" isn't going to accomplish anything. I really don't think that the solution to a broken system is to say "Hey, we know it's not working, but just give us another year of your lives and we'll promise to make it better."

Yeah, that's really going to work.

Comment Re:Why Not? (Score 1) 706

I never said "school" was fun; I said "learning" was fun.

The discussion is specifically about doing well - and presumably learning - in school.

You have to change the schools until learning is fun.

Not only does this not make a difference, it's also something very few can afford.

Paying kids to read will not do anything in the long run other than make kids who won't move unless someone pays them.

Kids, like everyone else, do things that interest them without getting paid. If you want them to do something they don't want to - such as learn multiple tables - you use stick or carrot, reward - payment - or threat of punishment, as motivator. Payment usually works better.

So yes, paying kids to read is just fine. I liked to read, but there's plenty of people who liked to learn soccer or social skills instead. They are going to find reading boring, so either accept that they won't, or provide external motivation.

I want employees who are creative, who have incentive, and initiative.

I guess you'd better reward these traits then.

I don't want to have to pay them over and above for every little thing.

You don't want to pay them for doing those things, and they don't want to do those things, but they need money and you need someone to do them so you pay them and they do them. What, exactly speaking, do you want; that these people do things for your benefit without you having to return the favour?

Did you seriously mean your post to come accross as "I want people to work for me without getting paid, and indoctrinated for that end from early childhood"?

(And, yes, I've heard this already. "I want to get a bonus because I didn't take any sick days this year.")

Well, I'm sure he's learned his lesson about it being foolish to put in more effort than the minimum, since there's no reward for that.

Comment Isn't Google missing the point? (Score 4, Interesting) 202

I occasionally put websites together for small businesses and it seems increasingly hard to get these kinds of websites known. Google seems to be more and more indexing websites with lots of content and now with speedier response which will completely slant their rankings towards large companies with huge resources.

For example, I did a website for a lady that sells garden and landscaping lighting local to where I am from. Her business focus is not one that needs a large web page, she just wants her catalog to display basically but she does want people to find her with Google. I've done all the things like making sure the title is accurate and headers are relevant, etc. However, it seems to me that much of it is futile. Unless she is the type of business that focuses on inviting people to add content to her site (in other words an internet/web business) the sad truth is that she will basically get ignored by Google.

Comment Re:P = NP, eh? (Score 1) 322

I always personally solve this sort of game by working my way towards all four corners, then spreading out. Seems to work 99% of the time, and I maybe look two moves ahead, if that. It'd be even easier to make a solver that did that, though it'd be even less optimal than the way you did it.

Comment Re:Makes sense really (Score 3, Insightful) 346

Neat theory.

Has nothing to do with the argument he made of course, anymore than my snarkily calling you "Bill" in my reply -

There are practices that every company is allowed to do normally to crush competition, buying out rivals, trying to lockout competitors, that are not allowed once they are actually in a position that sheer market volume in fact allows their success at doing so to be a foregone conclusion. The 800 pound gorilla is in fact *not* allowed to sit wherever he wants.

None of these practices are what Google is being accused of here. No attempt to lock out other competitors, no accusation of buying up rivals. They are being explicitly accused of . . . having better results.

Well, yeah. They got into this game with an advanced algorithm when everyone else was crap, were allowed to consolidate their hold on the market for ages with no real competition, and are benefiting thereby - unless someone else gets into the game with something snazzier that overcomes that lead, the bottom drops out of the search/advertising market, or the CEO's are caught in a sex scandal involving lower primates *and* Google simultaneously suppresses that info from their search results, they're going to hold that position.

That's not a valid monopoly complaint. *Other* than skewing search results deliberately (And, I sincerely hope, destroying their cred thereby), they're actually not well positioned to abuse monopoly power. They can't really prevent someone else from competing in the market. They can't really 'lock you in' to Google - heck, I'm more locked into *Gmail* than I am Google itself, and even that doesn't force me to use Google.

To that extent, as much power as they have (And I find it imposing myself), their market position is intrinsically weaker than Microsoft - they don't own the platform itself, I can leave anytime I want.

Having the advantage of being the biggest is not actually a legal problem. Using that advantage to, say, destroy java and netscape actually is.

Pug

Comment Re:Copyrights (Score 1) 193

Organizations are always claiming 1) copyright on stuff they don't have the copyright to and 2) rights that copyright law does not actually accord them. Like the NFL example given above - "pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the permission of the NFL are prohibited." Copyright does not give them the right to prohibit descriptions or accounts of the copyrighted broadcast, so that copyright notice should be illegal and they should be substantially fined for it. CDs would commonly prohibit lending on the copyright notice, which is also not permitted. There are many other examples.

Comment Reasonable Fees (Score 0) 1

As seems will be the case with the Tennenbaum vs RIAA case, these companies will probably be able to argue that the amounts are unreasonable and unconstitutional, so although these values seem ridiculous and inflated there are some nets in place to manage the claim amounts. And although this may require large legal fees, the companies that are shipping millions or billions of a product should be large enough to absorb this, or have legal teams on hand already.

Comment Re:I was labeled a Troll and insulted (Score 1) 342

Well know liar? He's a professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Queensland. And if you had watched more than 30 seconds of the first part of his lecture, and also the rest of the parts, you would see that the temperatures and warming rates of our time are statistically insignificant. In fact from the look of things, we are heading into another mini ice age.

Again, you failed to address the fact that he has a history of lies, and merely parroted the same old right-wing anti-science lies. We are not heading into a mini ice age.

There has been no statistical warming for the past decade.

What do you base that claim on?

Why do you think those emails caused such a stink?

Because of creationist-like quote-mining and misrepresentation of the contents.

They admitted it themselves.

They did no such thing.

Even climategate's Phil Jones conceded in a recent interview with the BBC that there had been no statistical warming recently which belies their own models.

Oh dear. You are quoting the misinformation from the Daily Fail, aren't you? You are evidently extremely ignorant of even basic science. The "statistical significance" comment takes more than half a brain to understand, and you evidently don't have that. Educate yourself instead of showing off your amazing ignorance and dishonesty.

Not some random female, but a greenpeace activist was who he was talking to.

Again, this is completely irrelevant. What some random activist things is not even remotely relevant to what the actual scientists are saying.

In it, he queries her motives and how she investigated the science. And we learn that she never actually did, but instead took unquestionably the propaganda pumped out by greenpeace as truth. This is the problem with most of the alarmists; it's no longer a scientific debate, but a matter of faith as is the case in religion. An utterly abhorrent stance in my opinion, and not one that should be taken when making decisions that could bankrupt our country.

The hypocrisy here is quite amazing. Monckton is a dishonest and disgusting liar who himself will only parrot right-wing lies. He hasn't a scientific bone in his body. Never mind the fact that the video is completely irrelevant to the scientific facts. It's just more hand-waving to get people to ignore the science.

It's patently obvious you have made up your mind regardless of the actual science, as demonstrated by repeated links to pro-AGW sites. If you have any real unmarred data sets (not hockey stick graphs constructed with manipulated data sets) which prove your position, then I would be more than happy to evaluate them.

You wouldn't know unmarred data if it punched you in the face. The way you are linking to videos of the retarded moron Monckton process that you are nothing but a denialist.

Please point out any half-truths I may have used. Is it a half truth that in the historical temperature record, CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around? That's a fact. Another fact; The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been ten times what it is today, yet all life did not cease to exist. Quite the opposite in fact, life thrived.

Indeed. The Gish Gallop. Typical brainwashed denialist drone. Here are the actual facts that refute your dishonest talking points:

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

One more fact; even if what you say is true, and the whole world went back to the stone age for 60 years, it would only reduce the temperature by one degree.

This is not a fact. This is a claim.

Are you willing to give up your pc, tv, phone, social life, education, existence?

Busted. You just admitted that you are opposed to scientific facts because they contradict your ideology. LOL.

Slashdot Top Deals

A motion to adjourn is always in order.

Working...