Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What do you think is the cause? Why not earth? (Score 1) 555

Are you actually serious that you can't think of anything that can cause one planet to warm without causing other to follow suit? It seems like just 10 seconds of thought is all that is needed to think this through, so you must be trolling. Perhaps I am just falling for a subtle troll then.

Imagine this. . . Mars is approaching its perihelion (the point in its orbit where it is closest to the sun). Then Mars would get warmer, but if Earth was leaving its perihelion then it would be getting colder at the same time.

With quick thought you might also come up with volcano action, greenhouse effects, radioactive elements, bombardment by astroids, or world-wide wild fires. It isn't that complicated!

Comment Simple Solution - Stop Trusting Them (Score 2) 409

Personally, I don't trust the updates that come out for my Samsung phone. My last phone had the GPS functionality reduced by an official upgrade. There were other things after that upgrade that were removed causing me to loose some data. I now will not install the upgrade that has been in the notification bar for the last year. I am planning on putting Cyanogenmod on there because I do trust them to do upgrades that are good for the customer. But the official ones from Sprint and Samsung, no-way. If the Apple fans stopped trusting their beloved company perhaps they would be in a better position. Of course it isn't as easy to mod the Apple and still have access to the apps, so they are more stuck because of their initial decision.

On a side note, I trust Microsoft even less and never install their updates on my system. I have less fear from viruses and malware than I do from the update coming from Redmond. And with the amount of spying being built into their recent versions of their OS they have become a gaming system only for me. If I want to have a work computer to do things on, it will be Linux. If I want to play games on my big screen tv, I can use Windows. I guess I'm not too worried about them spying on which game I am playing. As the linux gaming environment improves perhaps that will change, but it still seems that the video cards work better and Windows.

Comment Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 459

the resulting cell ceases to be attributable to one of the two organisms that supplied the two cells that took part in the fertilization process. Therefore, neither of the two cell supplier organisms should be allowed to treat the resulting cell and any further cells, tissues, or people derived thereof, as if it were their own tissue).

So that would make it a parasite then. Can we expect to see a pro-parasite group fighting for the rights of the tape worm to live in your gut in peace next?

Comment Re:Accusation through misunderstanding (Score 1) 223

I came here to post the same thing... except that instead of sub-space sci-fi... I was going with mother nature... like your compass spinning when standing at magnetic north, I suspect they will stumble upon a method of extracting a minute amount of energy from the environment, and due to their lack of scientific understanding they will attribute it to perpetual motion rather than simple energy balance accounting. Then some scientist will come along and explain it in a few minutes and the "inventor" will be all sad because science crapped on their idea.

The bottom line is they spend years tinkering with an idea, that a scientist armed with a little math and chemistry can debunk in a matter of minutes... leaving the rest of the time to do real science.

I have heard of a examples where the scientist experts said something was impossible. And if something is not possible in physics then people who have the knowledge will not be so stupid to waste their time on it. Except sometimes the experts are wrong. The Frazier lens is an example of such a thing. Everybody who knew the physics about light and lenses said it was not possible to get a lens with near infinite depth of field. The guy didn't listen to them and spent 10 years tinkering with lenses in his garage before coming up with the Frazier lens and it is amazing. I'm glad he wasn't a scientist who would have debunked the whole idea before even starting on it.

Now the descriptions of the lens state how it is just a so and so and fits the physics just fine. I think the physicists have updated their worldview to accept the new discovery already. And that is not the only example of this sort I have heard of, just the one I can think of right now.

Comment Re:The herd's moving (Score 0) 508

Whether intentional or not, you have given a great example of using numbers to tell a lie. Now why don't you look into how dangerous Measles are for people who are not malnourished children to the point of being sickly. Since I live in a country that has ample supplies of cheap food, this disease is not a danger. But the news media and “medical experts" talk about how deadly it is everytime someone gets sick. That's why your arguments fail.

Comment Re:The herd's moving (Score 0, Flamebait) 508

One of the things many in medicine are worried about is that anti-vax people are going to provide a host population and something like measles will mutate and go back to killing millions of people.

It is all the lies that the government and Pro-Vaxxers spew forth that make me trust that the vaccines are safe even less. Measles has never caused millions of deaths. It is basically like getting chicken pox. But then again, that is now made out to be a scary and deadly disease by the pro-vaxxers also, so no surprise there. Then add in the fact that the vaccine is not as effective as Merck tells you it is and you have another reason to avoid it. And I'm not talking subtly different, it's more like 45% effective when you are told it is 95% effective. Nice bunch of liars in the pro-vaxx camp!

Comment Re:Fine (Score 2) 720

People bought Google and Apple products knowing that there was telemetry and a walled garden. Nobody bought Windows 7

First of all, I never buy Windows. Pirating their OS is the only option as far as I am concerned. If they didn't manipulate the market to get themselves into a monopoly position I would have a different opinion. But I want to play the games that require powerful graphics cards and those work better on Windows. I do like that Steam is making it less of a requirement though.

believing that Microsoft would forcefully seize control of their computers and disable their manually-changed settings.

I fully believe that Microsoft will screw up my system. This is why I disable all updates. I have never trusted them and don't find that my system gets compromised from not being up to date on their updates. Safe computing goes a long way!

Comment Re: Obama, Champion of the Firearms Industry (Score 1) 555

Apparently in your mind the only way to turn chemical energy into electricity is to fire a bullet. Also, apparently in your mind, a person can swap out a bullet but not swap out an energy source. And the two can't be combined or paired. And there's not literally thousands of different ways to store energy, many easily managed by hand. And the amount of energy needed to run a fingerprint scanner for a split second trivial.

Nope, clearly it's an impossible task, let's all go make threats to any stores that want to carry smart guns and block all attempts to improve the technology!

I simply asked you how this technology would work. With any thought at all, you can see that even a small delay, less than a tenth of a second even, will put your aim off when firing. Instead you talked of this instant chemical to electrical energy conversion with no delay as if it's some sort of Star Trek episode. You have clearly shown that you don't know how to think. You have also shown that you are an ass hole by trying to put words in my mouth about threatening stores that carry smart guns. You are not worth talking to. Go to hell!

Comment Re:The arguments against smart tech are incomplete (Score 1) 555

I'm seeing two main arguments put forward from those who are against smart tech: weapon reliability and the 2nd amendment. To the first, it is insufficient to argue that a weapon is not worth having if there is some (additional) probability of the weapon failing due to the tech. One major safety concern is children getting their hands on guns. Some argue that safes are a sufficient solution but if one truly wants a gun as a means of defense, I doubt keeping it locked away will allow it to provide much protection and reflecting that children do get their hands on them. Now, suppose the probability a child gets their hands on a loaded weapon resulting in death is 10% and the probability of the tech causes the gun to fail when needed for defense is 1%, then the benefits of the tech outweigh the cost. These numbers are arbitrary to make the point that an increased chance of failure is only part of the equation. It's like saying sometimes an airbag deploys in such a way as to cause extreme harm to the driver that otherwise wouldn't happen so we should remove all airbags from cars. Relatedly I would guess that there are many different kinds of smart tech incorporating very different levels of functionality and control of the weapon meaning that the rate of failure will also vary. Product variety is good and there will be those who want more tech, those that want some, but less, and those that do not want any. The second concern is about the 2nd amendment but that's why we have the courts. If smart tech were to be mandated and it is indeed unconstitutional, as many argue, then guess what, the mandate will not be allowed and there is nothing to be worried about. I'm guessing NJ's law has not been tested because nobody has standing yet as there is no smart tech to mandate. Unfortunately, the law in NJ is still in place because it allows for this kind of divisiveness against developing the tech in the first place.

It can take years or even decades before a law is found to be unconstitutional and is repealed. You can't argue in court against a law unless you are caught by it. Several large cities just had their gun bans repealed that have been in place for a very long time. During that time, millions of people's lives are affected. They cannot do what they should be able to do and some of them, possibly thousands of people, are killed or arrested and put in prison. All of that due to an unconstitutional law.

The people who voted on that law face no consequences for their actions. In fact they often try to re-word the law and pass it again in a slightly changed form to get around the unconstitutionality of it while still being unconstitutional in the end. How about the people who voted for a law that caused so much harm to so many people pay for their actions. Taking the rights away from millions of people is arguably much worse than killing a dozen people. So I say they get the death penalty for their actions. Anyone who votes for a law that is found to be unconstitutional goes directly to the target end of a firing squad. That would curtail these mass criminals we have in government.

Comment Re:Not the reason for opposition (Score 1) 555

Because when it "works" there it'll spread. Simple as that. The Feds could pass a NJ type law and claim that they aren't infringing, you're still ALLOWED to buy guns, it's just now there's only 4 models approved for sale and they're all $2k or more.

I will allow these politicians to pass such ridiculous laws when they have some skin in the game. Each politician that sponsors or votes on a law that is found to be unconstitutional goes immediately to the firing squad for termination. Too many laws are passed that affect millions of people in the country in detrimental ways. Then when the law is repealed due to being unconstitutional the just re-write it with new wording and try to pass it through with as small as changes as they can make. With some fear of their life ending they won't be so gung-ho on passing spying laws or gun ban laws for the city.

Comment Re:There is only one goal (Score 1) 555

This is all about preventing current military grade weapons used by the federal government being stolen and used. We're not really talking about small time people either, this is likely about organized crime.

I could also imagine police officers would be happy if they didn't have to shoot a kid, just because he got hold of some other officers gun.. In fact ensuring that a gun can't be used against you must be very attractive to police officers... Especially, if one day, the American public decides that it's not okay for police officers to shoot people at the first sign of conflict.

If they don't want to shoot at kids, then they should just stop shooting at kids. There are way too many unarmed young people or children that are shot by police. Perhaps the people that should not be allowed to carry guns are the ones in the blue uniforms.

I like this idea! Wirelessly link the gun to the vest of the officer. If the vest takes the impact from a bullet, then the gun will fire normally. That shows that the officer is facing a dangerous person and has the right to fire. If the officer fires the gun before the vest is hit by a bullet, the cops gun fires the bullet out backwards right into the officer's face. This way the murderous police don't even need to be charged with a crime by their buddies and cohorts in the corrupt system, they just end up dead as a direct result of their own actions.

Comment Re: Obama, Champion of the Firearms Industry (Score 1) 555

It's funny how people are absolutely convinced that there's no way to store chemical energy - for the purposes of conversion to electricity for the fingerprint reader - in a manner that one can be sure will be available when they need to fire their gun, but they're absolutely confident in the ability to store chemical energy - for the purposes of creating expanding gases to propel the bullet out - in a manner that one can be sure will be available when they need to fire their gun.

If a bullet fails to fire, you simply rack the slide and load the next one in. So you would need clips full of this chemical to electricity pods to use each time you fire it. Are you thinking that each bullet will create the electricity to determine whether it should fire after the bullet has been fired?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to be maintained." -- The Tao of Programming