Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy (Score 1) 592

Your post is an example of the same SJW lynch mob nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about. Environmental engineering of roads to reduce crashes is the most effective and intelligent action to take. It reduces accidents and lowers the need for prosecution in the first place. The surroundings of a street have more impact on driving behaviour and outcomes than any presence of police patrols, speed cameras or signage.

Then, using your logic, we should remove paving of roads. That would definitely cause people to slow down! Societies have rules, plain and simple. If a society agrees that people shouldn't steal then they pass laws and enforce those laws to discourage the behavior. If a society says that you shouldn't drive faster than x on a given stretch of road, then why would it not enforce those laws to discourage the behavior?

Comment Re:Controversial? (Score 4, Interesting) 125

Why is it controversial, exactly?
Are critics worried about the X-Men? Or are they mad because of religious rigmarole?

Because they are creating genetically modified human beings. Currently, the technique is being looked at for certain negative conditions, but it has the potential to be used for other purposes, too. The issue of designer babies is a moral question, not a scientific one. And, moral questions are often controversial.

Comment Re:Both are wrong (Score 1) 235

That would be great, if spheroidal wasn't a word, and sphere and spheroid didn't mean two different things.

Sam

From http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

spherical (sfîr-kl, sfr-) also spheric (-k)
adj.
1.
a. Having the shape of a sphere; globular.
b. Having a shape approximating that of a sphere.
2. Of or relating to a sphere.
3. Of or relating to celestial bodies.

I can only assume one of three things are true:
1) You saying that the earth does not have a shape approximating that of a sphere?
2) You are saying that the earth is a two dimensional ellipse that when spun around one of its axis forms a spheroid. (of course that would make the earth flat, being only two dimensions).
3) You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

In case the reason is 3, then is the earth spheroidal in shape by nature or is it spherical and only deformed into such shape from the forces exerted by its revolution? Furthermore, isn't spherical just a subset of spheroidal? If so, in the case of planetary bodies in this solar system, is not the term synonymous?

Comment Re:GOOD (Score 2) 165

Fuck Java. I hated it was a requirement for my networking classes and I hate what it has done to the industry in terms of advertising/abuse.

Java didn't do any of that. People did. And if it wasn't Java, they would have used something else. Java, is just a tool that people use to accomplish a goal.

Comment Much simpler approach (Score 2) 425

Instead of

One possibility for the future is mapping your internal chemistry and having it analyzed with a massive database to see what foods work best for you. Another may involve tweaking your gut microbiome to change how you extract energy from certain foods.

1) Eat food - food does not list ingredients, but often is listed as an ingredient. A potato is food, A box of scallop potatoes is not. If what you are eating is required to have labels to inform you of what is really in it, then it isn't food. (Note: this applies mainly to packaged food products. Obviously, there are foods that have labels, because they may be packed in water, etc.)

2) Don't change calories - Calories simply measure the maximum amount of energy that may be utilized. People have different metabolisms so that one person may be more efficient at utilizing those calories than somebody else, but that doesn't mean we should change the measure. Different automobiles are more or less efficient at utilizing gasoline, but that doesn't mean we should change how gasoline is labeled.

3) Calories aren't nutrition - Calories are about energy, not nutrition. 100 calorie apple and a 100 calories of sugar both provide the same amount of available energy, but the sugar has zero nutritional value. However, since calories do impact weight as in calories consumed less calories burned will either add to or subtract from one's weight, they can't be ignored. On the otherhand, they shouldn't be obsessed over, particularly since metabolism has a major impact on weight.

4) CICO - Calories In, Calories Out - assuming one is getting adequate nutrition, if the concern is weight, then regardless of ones metabolism, if you are gaining weight more weight than you want, you either a) need to reduce calories or b) burn more calories. Likewise, if you are losing more weight than desired, you need to a) increase calories or b) burn less of them. It doesn't take some database tailored to your specific body or specific flora in your gut. Those may explain why one person loses or gains more than another, but it doesn't alter CICO.

TL;DR - We don't need a national database of each person's metabolic profile or gut flora. We simply need to eat nutritious food and have more active lifestyles.

Comment Re:How to survive? (Score 1) 293

If I have a self driving car that can't get in an accident, why do I need insurance? If it gets in an accident it isn't my fault.

Because unless you simply store it in your garage, it is impossible to have a self driving car that can't get into an accident. The likelihood of an accident is greatly reduced, but it isn't eliminated.

Comment How to survive? (Score 1) 293

Why would insurance companies need to be figuring out how to survive? True, there may be less vehicles in the future, but they will still be insured. Yes, the vehicles may be safer and have fewer accidents, but they will still be insured. Insurance companies profit from managing the risk. Yes, they will have lower gross revenue, but they will also have lower expenses. The net effect should be unchanged.

That is, of course, assuming that insurance companies aren't charging inflated rates in the current climate.

Comment Re:Ninth, mofo. (Score 0) 258

Bigotry refers to rejecting someone else's opinions without considering them because they are not your own.
It has nothing to do with being mean or hateful. It originated with religion. A bigot is basically someone who says "I'm right, you're wrong, BECAUSE!".
However, the media and SJW crowd have turned the word bigot into a weapon and misused it terribly.

I relied on Mirriam-Webster's definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot ). Maybe in the past it meant what you say, but the way it is used today does not reflect what you say. Bigotry, today, is about prejudice and intolerance. For instance, all racists are bigots, but all bigots are not racists.

The original post about little people, was bigotry because it used a derogatory label -- dwarfs. Just like, referring to somebody who is mentally challenged as retarded is, too. Since we can choose the word we use to describe others, the actual choice of words we use reveals our own prejudices.

Comment Re:Ninth, mofo. (Score 2) 258

>> Dwarf planets are not planets any more than dwarf people are people.

Dwarf planets are not planets any more than daddy long-legs spiders are not spiders.
Dwarf planets are not planets any more than Komodo dragons are not dragons.
Dwarf planets are not planets any more than Fool's Gold is not gold.

I think we can agree that English isn't the best language for science. Where are we going with this?

Two and three are correct, but there definitely is a real daddy long-legs spider. It's just that most people misidentify an creature known as a harvestmen as a daddy long-legs spider, which obviously, it is not.

Slashdot Top Deals

In the future, you're going to get computers as prizes in breakfast cereals. You'll throw them out because your house will be littered with them.

Working...