Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:In other words. (Score 1) 270

Flip the argument around: A legal precedent exists for a decision not to release documents, so why does that prove something to hide?

You, topology and bobbied are making a basic logical error here. The fact that there is no proof of anything to hide is not proof that there is nothing to hide.

Comment Where's the Appeal? (Score 2) 100

Given that life had to originate somewhere, and that we know next to nothing about the distribution of life in the universe, panspermia seems to me like a solution looking for a question to be the answer of. I am bemused by the fact that some people seem to find a universe having panspermia more satisfying than one without it, just as I am bemused by people who find a universe with reincarnation more appealing than one without (if you can't remember anything about your former selves, what's the difference? - they are as good as dead.)

I don't deny panspermia could happen; my attitude is essentially 'call me when you have something that goes beyond speculation.'

Comment Re:In other words. (Score 1) 270

You are getting confused over who is claiming certainty in this discussion. No-one is claiming that it is proven that something is being hidden, but someone (bobbied, initially) is claiming (or at least apparently trying to imply; he hasn't yet chosen to clarify his comment) that it is out of the question that something is being hidden.

Comment Re:In other words. (Score 3, Informative) 270

Did you read the part of the linked to article that says that a similar request was refused and the court agreed that these records are not releasable though a FOIA request back in 2013? Yea, didn't think so...

And that proves there's nothing to hide because...?

Comment Re:Approach security the wrong way? No shit! (Score 1) 157

To follow on from my earlier reply, but with regard to your last sentence specifically: "If they can layer on system security without compromising occupant safety, they will, but not at the expense of crash survivability."

That's a non-sequitur in this case. The correct viewpoint should have been "if they can connect to outside networks without compromising occupant safety, they will, but not at the expense of anyone's safety."

Once you have chosen to make such connections possible, layering on security is not optional. If they say they can't do that without impairing crash survivability then don't create the security risk in the first place.

Comment Re:Approach security the wrong way? No shit! (Score 1) 157

Your exposition is informative, but it doesn't reach the point of explaining why the access necessary for this sort of remote exploit is necessary for the proper operation of the car. You cannot make a case for that from generalized "it's complicated" arguments.

Comment Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines? (Score 2) 273

It is highly ironic that you should link to Tennant's article, given that you are attempting to claim that there is a fallacy behind the author's words. A much more effective (and perhaps only) way for you to refute them (and which would also conform to Tennant's ideas of a correct response) would be to present some examples of "alternative approaches to medicine" that do work (and while you are about it, explain in what way they are "alternative" - a choice between chemo and radiation, for example, is not the sort of alternative being discussed here.)

Comment Re:good idea (Score 1) 363

That's a supremely good idea. Left turns from/to two-way streets are difficult and disruptive in New York City.

Except... don't pedestrians fall under threat from right turns, too?

Assuming the analysis has been done correctly, the statistics show that left turns are significantly more dangerous. My completely un-researched (other than by walking and driving in cities) guesses as to why is that drivers attempting to dart through oncoming traffic are not paying any attention to anything else, and are partially hidden from pedestrians by that traffic (and vice-versa). They also have more time to accelerate before impact, and possibly are more motivated (by oncoming traffic) to accelerate hard.

If these guesses are right, then left turns from one one-way street to another are less dangerous than those involving two-way streets, other things being equal.

Fear is the greatest salesman. -- Robert Klein