Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Chance? (Score 1) 976

by AaronLS (#48242411) Attached to: Creationism Conference at Michigan State University Stirs Unease

Not only that, but all of these goals are targeting destruction and attack on the ideas of others. This indicates how they have no interest in learning or advancing knowledge at all. Any other organization around a theory would be trying to advance knowledge of its own theory. It's not a matter of them having their own theory and wanting to develop that theory or produce new knowledge around their field.

This all reflects why they are in their current state of mind, as they have no drive to learn, whether it be about their own ideas or the ideas of others. So they are in no position to rationally evaluate/compare/criticize their own theories against the theories of others.

So regardless of whether you believe in creationism or not, their whole approach is completely flawed.

Comment: Re:The saddest part is..... (Score 4, Insightful) 56

by AaronLS (#48225439) Attached to: Secretive Funding Fuels Ongoing Net Neutrality Astroturfing Controversy

Joking aside, the issue here that stands in the way of free market forces prevailing is the overwhelming cost of building the infrastructure required to compete on the same footing as established companies. If we had reasonable alternative ISP's we could vote with our dollars.

The reason telco's managing landlines were regulated so heavily is because they each get a slice of the infrastructure pie to provide their services on. Essentially a government mandated local monopoly, and thus the government dictates how much the telco can charge so that the telco cannot abuse their monopoly. This of course doesn't eliminate abuse nor guarantee that the rates are fair, but instead or the rates that the telco can convince the local officials are fair.

The benefits of this questionable arrangement are clear when you consider that the alternative is each company build its own duplicate infrastructure, which would result in poor under utilization of that infrastructure and result in higher costs passed on to consumers. Essentially this is why some want ISP's treated like utilities.

There are a handful of companies like Google who have the capital to build such infrastructures and bring competition to the table. Even in the presence of a true free market, companies often do not battle by providing competitive pricing, but instead find it more profitable to put money into advertising. If there are only two choices in an area, each will have a fair amount of people who are convinced by the advertising the X is better than Y, and then a fair amount of people who had a bad experience with X and so switched to Y. X and Y both charge way more than what it really costs to provide the service. They don't really have to coordinate price fixing, they simply come to the same conclusion after doing market research of what people are most likely to pay for service. Even if one has a slightly higher price than the other, the large profit margin will make up for the lost customers.

Comment: Re:What privacy concerns? (Score 1) 168

by AaronLS (#48213915) Attached to: Austin Airport Tracks Cell Phones To Measure Security Line Wait

Pretty much what I was thinking.

"People everywhere are constantly scanning with their beady little eyes. If they see someone in public they have met before, they recognize them and are able to track them through the crowd with these eyes. The privacy implications of this being used in a place that is not at all private and completely public, are unsettling."

Comment: Re:Society hypocrisy.... (Score 1) 387

by AaronLS (#48168825) Attached to: Torvalds: I Made Community-Building Mistakes With Linux

'"Shut up you idiotic shitstained spooge gargler" is a more concise translation of "I am done listening".'

Seven words is not more concise than 4... You also don't understand the distinction between personal attacks and technical criticism. I made no distinction about value systems.

I could have ranted for a paragraph about how stupid you are, but it was more efficient to articulate it. Not only that, but pointing out the facts is more efficient time wise than have a name calling session that won't end in anything productive. Two programmers can go back and forth for an hour insulting each other and come to nothing or spend 30 seconds pointing out the technical merits of one approach or another. Where I work discussions are always civil and we go through design change decisions very quickly. Other places I've worked they suffer from bad decisions because they can't communicate decision rational. It has nothing to do with value systems and everything to do with efficient communication.

" so don't tell me people should be understanding of these things. "
I told you those things.

Comment: Re:Society hypocrisy.... (Score 1) 387

by AaronLS (#48164205) Attached to: Torvalds: I Made Community-Building Mistakes With Linux

You imply that Linus's comments are technical attacks and not personal attacks. Far from the case. He likes to say things like referring to other developers sucking c***. That's a personal attack, not a technical one. Next time a coworker proposes a solution that you think lacks technical merit, tell him he sucks c*** and see how productive that discussion is.

Comment: Re:Of course! (Score 3, Interesting) 571

by AaronLS (#48154847) Attached to: Lockheed Claims Breakthrough On Fusion Energy Project

"No matter how many billions you spend, you're not going to make a Chevette go faster than the speed of light."

You're comparing something that most would say is theoretically impossible, to something that most agree is theoretically possible and has already been achieved on a very small scale(LLNL ignition, of course not at the efficiency tipping point yet).

"The problems are technical"
The problems facing a mission to the moon were also technical, but with extraordinary funding they were able to fast track it by dividing up all the technical problems they faced and tackling them individually.

Fusion has many technical problems that could be tackled independently in parallel. See "When will fusion power my house (or vehicle)?" in the previously linked article. It covers this pretty extensively.

"You can't point at funding as a problem for fusion."
I can and did. The facts provided in the link are pretty compelling.

"..can't point at funding.... The problems are ... economic."
You contradicted yourself.

"No amount of money will fix that."
You've never heard of this thing called "employment". You have a technical problem, you use money to employ experts in the field that you are having that problem, and they come up with a solution. If that solution requires labor and materials to implement, you then employ some more people.

No or little amount of funding means little meaningful progress. You have some independent researchers working here and there to produce some papers and try to get published, but at some point you've got to coordinate activities and get appropriate amount of effort applied to each technical problem in an organized way:

You can't call BS if your only supporting argument is BS.


The Correct Response To Photo Hack Victim-Blamers 622

Posted by samzenpus
from the who's-to-blame dept.
Bennett Haselton writes As commenters continue to blame Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities for allowing their nude photos to be stolen, there is only one rebuttal to the victim-blaming which actually makes sense: that for the celebrities taking their nude selfies, the probable benefits of their actions outweighed the probable negatives. Most of the other rebuttals being offered, are logically incoherent, and, as such, are not likely to change the minds of the victim-blamers. Read below to see what Bennett has to say.

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 3, Insightful) 294

by AaronLS (#48104797) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: An Accurate Broadband Speed Test?

Agreed he should accuse WIFI with no evidence, but at the same time it is not a legitimize test with WIFI in the loop. If he's experience connection issues or measuring performance of his cable connection, then he should do a direct connection to eliminate WIFI since it is very susceptible to many issues that could affect performance. Only then can he point fingers at the cable connection.

Comment: Re: Lifetime at 16nm? (Score 4, Interesting) 66

by AaronLS (#47921535) Attached to: Micron Releases 16nm-Process SSDs With Dynamic Flash Programming

It may not have to do with cell lifetime, but it does relate to overall endurance. If their "tricks" are legitimate algorithmic approaches to improving endurance, then the native cell lifetime becomes less of a solid metric to endurance. It would be the analogy to when clock speeds of CPUs became less relevant when manufacturers began focusing on increasing pipeline throughput instead of clock speed.

If a decrease from 20nm to 16nm feature size increases density by 25% and only decreases cell lifetime by 10%, then they will have more than enough new capacity to overprovision for the difference, and if their algorithmic improvements are legitimate, then that mitigates the need for additional over provisioning.

There's alot of "if"s in there of course, because you can't always take such PR at face value.

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.