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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Altitude is difficult to estimate (Score 1) 127 127

There have been studies done before asking average people to estimate how high an object is in the sky (generally balloons or kites) and the estimates were generally awful. Even judging the difference between 60 and 200 feet is generally beyond the range of what most humans can comprehend in vertical distance.

Comment Re:Once you have replicators (Score 1) 3 3

I had to chew on this one for a little bit. When any of our "things" can be replaced with the press of a button, we'd probably adopt a cultural of (voluntarily) loose ownership. Where what we created for ourselves we would still say we own, but most of us would be willing to give away most kinds of things if someone asked. I wouldn't call that communism, I would call that one of the effects of a rising tide lifting all boats: an increasing generosity.

Now if you're talking about an abusive (i.e. controlling) state, where the people are deprived of all the replicator technology and it's only in the hands of the government for it to dole out the output of, then also assuming a near-infinite energy source to run and I guess be the raw material for these machines, you could say that that thorny issue with Leftist economics of "eventually running out of other people's money" would be overcome.

I guess in that sense it would "work".

p.s. An interesting (to me at least) thought just occurred: Mr. Roddenberry didn't swap Right-wing economics for Left-wing economics in his made-up universe, he did away with economics?

User Journal

Journal Journal: OK, joke's on me 7 7

I have no business being surprised that the usual /. suspects are
as sheepish on how stupid the Iran deal is
as they are sheepish on Planned Parenthood
as they are sheepish on anthropogenic global warming
as they are sheepish on pretty much everything else.
Sweet lambs!

Comment Re:Shorter d_r: (Score 1) 48 48

Are you unaware that there are "side deals" with the IAEA to which Congress is not privy?

So you're trying to tell us that there are secret deals that congress doesn't know about, but you do? I'd love to know who your sources are that congress is not able to communicate with.

I defy you to show when I (or anyone else, for that matter) has EVER floated a theory that HRC or BHO initiated the attack on Benghazi, irrespective of motive.

If they didn't initiate it, then why are you so angry about them having the cause of it wrong the first day they briefed the media on it? How can you be so sure that they knew how it came to be - and gave an alternate story for it - if they didn't call it in themselves? Your claim that they initially were lying can only be backed up if they knew that what they said was wrong. You haven't provided any other explanation for why they would have known it to be wrong, unless they had themselves fabricated the intelligence reports that existed up to that point (which, in the world of your conspiracy, would have only been done for political gain).

Comment Re:Shorter d_r: (Score 1) 48 48

Again: what is "the deal"?
Cough up the actual details about what's going on, why don't you?
The Iran deal is a 100% "stuck in fupid" waste of time. I hope that the Secretary of Stumped got a lot of freaky flier miles. Iran is doing what it's going to do. We have stated that, not only do we refuse to oppose them, but we're going to blow off sanctions. I guess it proves what morons we are. President Jarrett must be all giggly.
Then there's you and your brother d_r on here trying to be apologists for the idiocy.
What an inverted day we live in.

Comment Re:Shorter d_r: (Score 1) 48 48

So apparently your assumptions about what someone else might think about someone is more important than the fact that this is not binding without congress approving it. Gotcha.

Are you unaware that there are "side deals" with the IAEA to which Congress is not privy? Your use of "fact" in this context is. . .humorous.

One of your Benghazi conspiracies claims that she - with or without President Lawnchair - initiated the attack on Benghazi for political gain.

This is 100% you talking. I defy you to show when I (or anyone else, for that matter) has EVER floated a theory that HRC or BHO initiated the attack on Benghazi, irrespective of motive.
I theorize that you're in High Troll mode here, and rate this a C+ effort.

Comment Re:Shorter d_r: (Score 1) 48 48

Congress has full authority to trash and/or disregard the proposed treaty.

By not submitting a treaty as a treaty, for 2/3 ratification, I'm pretty sure President Jarrett has indicated her overall opinion of whatever Congress has to say.

So apparently your assumptions about what someone else might think about someone is more important than the fact that this is not binding without congress approving it. Gotcha.

President Lawnchair sent his top diplomat over

the stone cold disaster that was his predecessor.

Hold on a second, here. One of your Benghazi conspiracies claims that she - with or without President Lawnchair - initiated the attack on Benghazi for political gain. If that is the case, then she most certainly is not a disaster as the attack most definitely happened. I know you champion so many conspiracies that you have a hard time noticing when one is contradicting another, but this one is pretty damned obvious.

Comment Re:Shorter d_r: (Score 1) 48 48

Congress has full authority to trash and/or disregard the proposed treaty.

By not submitting a treaty as a treaty, for 2/3 ratification, I'm pretty sure President Jarrett has indicated her overall opinion of whatever Congress has to say.

President Lawnchair sent his top diplomat over

The chief value of the Secretary of Stumped is to distract from the stone cold disaster that was his predecessor.
We so baked!

If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious.

Working...