Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Good. (Score 1) 166

> Humans have been promiscuous since before there was anything vaguely promiscuous.

Have you looked into bonobos, or dolphins? Bonobos are quite close primate relatives, and even more promiscuous in general than humans. And dolphins are _quite_ promiscuous. We're evolutionary latecomers, only a few million years old at most. Almost every physical trait and behavior we have was tried by many other species long before we evolved.

Comment Re:And she wants to be President! (Score 1) 248

And Libya was an icon of peaceful commerce and US support _before_ she did anything as Secretary of State?

Moammar Ghadaffi had 42 years of corrupt leadership of Libya to instigate a civil war, and to alienate other nations, and he did a very thorough task of it. The amazing thing is that the war took so _long_ to start. Hillary Clinton could not have added much to trigger the war, except to help send in US troops, which she did not do.

Comment Re:We all know this (Score 2) 330

> The consequences for scientists who falsify their results is real and severe,

But often delayed enough to gather several years of funding, years during which many over-eager scientists scrape for vindication of their original claims. I'm afraid that several times in my career, I've worked with scientists whose initial findings were fundamentally false and refused to retract them. Publishing the truth turned out to be very delicate, because the groups whose data were clearly better collected, better calibrated, and thus more valid would be smeared and possibly lose their own funding if they exposed the falsehoods directly. And scientific "churn" also ties to the value of new patents and new technologies: even if the new technology is not significantly better or if it costs more, superficial benefits that are not borne out by experiment are used to sell the new product.

It's a rampant problem in chemistry and electronics: I've recently encountered it with storage technologies, where very exciting and sophisticated new technologies provided no benefit over older technologies that had already been rejected for very good reasons.

Comment Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! (Score 1) 82

> More like "mostly NOT quite dangerous". LEO doesn't even make the top 10 in most deadly professions.

I'm afraid I've had this discussion before, on Slashdot. Please note that I did not say "deadly". I said "dangerous". And not being on the top 10 most fatal list does not mean a profession is safe, anymore than not being on the New York Times bestseller list means a novel is bad. Fatalities among police are continuing to drop, in the last few decades, partly due to better training, better equipment for most departments, and a rush of funding for police in the wake of 9/11. I think it's also partly due to even faster and more effective responses by emergency crews to injuries that would have previously proven fatal. But they're still at profound risk of traffic injuries, injuries from being the first effective rescue personnel on the scene and vulnerable to bruises, breaks, and burns while trying to help, and most especially to handling domestic violence.

>> It's why it's so important that police, prosecution, courts, and lawmakers are kept at odds, so they can and do limit each other's power.

> When did that start in the US?

Part of it was built into the Constitution, with federal lawmakers, courts, and military or enforcement powers kept deliberately separate. The theory is that if any one department runs amok, the others can collaborate to overwhelm them. The same principal applies to the Army, Navy, Marines, and in the last 100 years the Air Force. The frequent collaboration among the departments is _supposed_ to be about mutual benefits to the people as a while:

There is _nothing_ unique to the modern law enforcement or to the USA in wanting to appear "tough on crime", and the abuses that can result. The novel "Les Miserable" includes precisely this in the wake of the French Revolution.

Comment Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! (Score 3, Insightful) 82

It's a big country: there are a _lot_ of local police doing good work, and it's hard, usually dull, sometimes quite dangerous work. The local officers with their boots on the ground doing the real day-to-day work are worth their weight in BitCoins.

But yes, corruption and brutal enforcement with the public as "the enemy" are terrible, easy habits to fall into for individuals and for whole departments. Some corruption is inherent in _having_ a culture large enough to require law enforcement. It's why it's so important that police, prosecution, courts, and lawmakers are kept at odds, so they can and do limit each other's power.

Comment Re:How can you "steal" a bitcoiin? (Score 1) 82

Since patent and copyright violations, and even theft of trade secrets can be prosecuted as theft, yes, it could certainly be considered theft. Whether Bitcoins are considered currency or not, they're considered valuable trade goods by the owners of the Bitcoins, and they have a pretty clear market value. The extortion and obstruction of justice engaged in by this agent hopefully make it even easier to prosecute.

Comment Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! (Score 4, Insightful) 82

> He's a government employee, a

_Former_ government employee. The courts don't provide anywhere near as much lenience for former employees as for active employees of law enforcement agencies.

And if you are convinced that the US government and its courts will not turn a blind eye to criminal acts by federal employees, please review the revelations about NSA criminal and unconstitutional activities published by Edward Snowden for a recent striking example. is filled with criminal activity by many governments: the USA is not immune. Turning a blind eye to colleague abuses is a common problem.

Comment Re:pros and cons (Score 3, Insightful) 491

> IF the F-35 does four different roles

But it can't do _any_ of the roles well. The tradeoffs made to accommodate all different military branches needs have played havoc with doing _any_ role well. The repair and upkeep costs are astronomical, it's a fuel glutton, it's fragile, and it's clumsy.

My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.