Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:You think 7 vaccines is a lot? (Score 1) 338

by Bite The Pillow (#49524865) Attached to: Study Confirms No Link Between MMR Vaccine and Autism

Are you saying that among the piles of natural things assaulting an infant, the 7 or so man-made and unnatural things we inject are harmless, just because of statistics?

If the first dose has a stronger reaction, it being foreign when the other doses are familiar stuff, that kinda suggests foreign stuff is bad.

I think anti-vaxxers are retarded. But your argument is just as ignorantly stupid. Try again.

Comment: Re:Old, old news (Score 0) 157

First off, does that even mean anything? What units is the "scale" of a universe expressed in?

Scale doesn't have units - if I have a 200x zoom it could be meters or feet or idiotic statements. If only there were an article to answer your fucking questions:

the largest observable scales are âoeonlyâ 92 billion light years or so (from one edge of the observable Universe to the other), while the smallest theoretical scale, the Planck scale, is down at around 10^-35 meters. All told, this is just 62 orders of magnitude

So, did you expect it to be on a scale of a googol squared? Because that's the scale here according to the fucking article.

Weâ(TM)ve managed to zoom in by more than a factor of 10^200, or more than a googol squared, and we still find this same self-similarity, and the same remarkable, intricate structures.

But isn't it mathematically proven that the Mandelbrot set has the same "complexity" at all scales?

Are you telling or asking? Because these videos are pretty damned amazing, and the human brain is a lot better at pattern recognition than computers, and at a zoom of 10^200 the patterns are still self similar. The *theory* of self-similarity either was proven or not proven. I like to see it for myself if possible, and I saw it for myself. I'm not sure I'd understand the proof, but I understand the video.

Was it proven or not?

I'd have thought it would be more interesting to talk about...

Then why didn't you?

Comment: Re:American "Justice" (Score 1) 173

This is not a mistake.

This is presuming that the arresting officers or investigators must have done their job right, so we should support their side of the story.

The same, effectively, as telling a jury that the defendant must be guilty because why would an innocent man be arrested and in court?
It's not justice, but so far beyond just covering up mistakes.

Comment: Re:I guess he crossed the wrong people (Score 1) 320

Monsanto products are apparently Round-Up resistant, so you can spray herbicides on otherwise edible plants.

The objections are not against breeding pesticide generation. The objections are against being

1) Unnaturally bred, and therefore largely untested in nature, even if by science
2) Okay with large amounts of herbicides, which will end up in the herb

I assume you drink round-up regularly and have no objection to it in your vegetables, if you object to the objections.

And your objection to resistant weeds is really scare-monger territory. There are much better reasons to object, like exactly what I just typed.

Comment: Re:I guess he crossed the wrong people (Score 1) 320

Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops

WTF, moron, "relentless" is not "one". And of course he's going to eat the low hanging fruit. That's what his audience likes, appreciates, and wants. That's why people oppose him, because he has an audience that wants the low hanging fruit.

I'm over 40, my fruit hangs low. His audience is likely to like my fruit nonetheless. I'm not judging.

But he can sway a whole lot of people, while peer reviewed journals don't have that sort of audience. Care to rebut?

Comment: Re:Not good enough. (Score 1) 225

by Bite The Pillow (#49494475) Attached to: GNU Hurd 0.6 Released

Show me some proof that anyone cares enough to drive GNU/Hurd to a 1.0 release.

If it gets there, you have your proof. If it doesn't, you were right. Let's wait.

Or without waiting - hey, there's a release just now. Someone is obviously working on it. There's your proof!

But it's not at 1.0 yet. Why is 1.0 a magic number? The original question was who is working on it and why do they care. Now you are quantifying how much they have to care. And if you don't get your proof, do they have to stop working on it? And you're at +3 right now, so someone wasted a mod point on your drivel.

You're not helping.

Comment: Re:Disturbing this is even being openly discussed (Score 1) 212

Only through inaction on the part of the citizenry. The fact that they have to ask for this shows we are achieving technical parity. It is up to the citizens to protect the citizens, and we can do exactly that.

Ignoring the question of whether they should be reading the mail (that's another topic, don't dilute this thread), we have effectively been sending post cards instead of envelopes.

We would not have switched to encryption everywhere without this, so it's a problem of their own making. And now it's a question of whether big business is run by citizens. Some are, and have switched, so the "all corporations are bad" nonsense is invalid.

It is up to the citizens to restore the balance of power. Should we trust that the spy agencies will do nothing unconstitutional? I know your answer, but what about the courts that write laws that get overturned?

My point by bringing that up is that the citizens have a responsibility to ensure the government is respecting their rights. If dragnet data collection is allowed by the courts, and the citizens disagree, then encrypt everything.

Comment: Re:What is possible vs. what is useful (Score 1) 117

How often? All the time. Only I constantly wish for improvement, so that "mediocre" can eventually be left out.

How often you look at something and think the same is apparently "same as a person with no concept of the future, with no imagination, and who is dead inside and is best left alone with a unloaded handgun, some bullets, and a bottle of sloe gin."


Comment: Re:It gives a false view (Score 1) 141

by Bite The Pillow (#49426543) Attached to: Why CSI: Cyber Matters

It presents the best side of the worst.

I have been yelling at the TV since law and order. Each few years brings us a more invasive demonstration of how the police state can infiltrate the bad guys and make life better for the rest of us.

Cyber is, on the whole, more damaging than anything prior.

Person of Interest balances that slightly, but both the good and bad guys are fighting crime. It is actual crime, but that is only true/confirmed in retrospect unless we know from the start, which is not constitutional.

Any given program will expand to fill available memory.