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

 



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

Comment Re: double blind testing (Score 1) 429

the point is not about detecting, the point is about being affected.

Even the worst "sufferers" of it can't successfully detect the presence of the very thing that supposedly leaves them in agony.

That is complete nonsense. With a bit of training, every one can do that.

the point is not about detecting, the point is about being affected.

"Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure."


Sorry, you are not listening, are you?

Not any more, nope. You've gone full circle with that shotgun o' logic; feel free to just keep recursively quoting yourself from the above two choices until you get bored.

Comment Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (Score 4, Interesting) 106

If Malaysia practices apartheid, why is the civilized world not boycotting, divesting from, and sanctioning this country? This is what happens to countries that practice apartheid. It worked on South Africa and it can work again on Malaysia.

I wasn't even aware of this until I read the summary, and I read a lot of international news.

Comment Re:Who proposed tem? (Score 4, Insightful) 229

There are people out there who want new for new's sake. They are desperately bored with their lives and demand novelty. Long-term thinking is alien as well as boring. They're going to demand the mallard duck and the avocado, cheer when they are approved, and then never use them. Next round of Unicode, they'll have more dumb ideas to include.

Coming up: Unicode 16, when the committee gets fed up with all these dumb symbols that nobody uses and purges the list.

Comment Re:How about "no"? (Score 1) 593

Asking Facebook to follow German law while operating in Germany is somehow forcing "billions of Facebook users" to his ideology?

Yes, because Facebook doesn't exist only in Germany or only in the US.

If I, as a US citizen, want to deny the holocaust on Facebook, FB then has two choices - Remove the offending comment entirely, or at least block it from viewers in Germany. Either of those infringe on my right to express whatever brand of bigotry I may subscribe to despite living in an entirely different country that doesn't feel the need to outlaw critical thinking. I might not get arrested for it, but I would have had my voice silenced as a result of Germany's stupidity.

FWIW, I don't count as a holocaust denier. I arrived at that conclusion through rational consideration of the evidence, however, not because my government told me what to think - And in fact, the latter would make me less likely to believe it; any time the government really wants you to believe something, that raises the bar for the actual evidence a hell of a lot higher.

Comment Re:How about "no"? (Score 2) 593

Here in the U.S., you cannot just say anything that you want without consequences. Hate speech, threats, and bullying are illegal here.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but one correction - Of those three, only credible threats actually break the law (with a few temporary state-by-state exceptions for cyberbullying).

Hate speech absolutely does not violate US law. Inciting to violence against them, sometimes (again, if credible); Ranting until you go horse about the evils of Muslims or gays or Canadians, no. You have every right to hate whatever groups you want and talk about it every chance you get - Hell, you can even do it while running for president!

Several states have passed anti-bullying laws, but not federally, and individual state supreme courts (e.g., New York) have already started overturning them as unconstitutional, and only a matter of time until the USSC does the same.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 4, Insightful) 649

other than typical reactionary hate I don't see what the problem is.

You now have your init daemon providing an alternate attack pathway for gaining privileged access to the system, in a way that completely circumvents the well-established (and monitored by most IDSs) auditing capabilities of the platform.

I'd call that a problem, but YMMV.

Comment Re:Feynman and Crichton (Score 1) 252

Acutely summed up in this quote from the Crichton lecture:

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Comment Re: double blind testing (Score 1) 429

Never mind following my link, did you even read the one sentence summary I quoted in my original post???

Here, if the World Health Organization doesn't count as a good enough source for you, how about a nice high quality Wikipedia link:
several double-blind experiments have been published, each of which has suggested that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields

Double blind. Unable to detect. What part of that don't you people get?

But hey, prove all the haters wrong! If you can do it so much better than everyone else, set up your own study and vindicate all these poor suffering folks condemned to a permanent vacation in a beautiful rural mountain village.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 1) 170

There used to be a web page called "Your Eyes Suck at Blue". You might find it on the Wayback machine.

You can tell the luminance of each individual channel more precisely than you can perceive differences in mixed color. This is due to the difference between rod and cone cells. Your perception of the color gamut is, sorry, imprecise. I'm sure that you really can't discriminate 256 bits of blue in the presence of other, varying, colors.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 5, Insightful) 170

Rather than abuse every commenter who has not joined your specialty on Slashdot, please take the source and write about what you find.

Given that CPU and memory get less expensive over time, it is no surprise that algorithms work practically today that would not have when various standards groups started meeting. Ultimately, someone like you can state what the trade-offs are in clear English, and indeed whether they work at all, which is more productive than trading naah-naahs.

The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

Working...