Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Citation Needed (Score 4, Informative) 281

by Flyskippy1 (#47752401) Attached to: The Evolution of Diet

The assertion that foraging people "traditionally didn't develop high blood pressure, atherosclerosis, or cardiovascular disease" needs a big 'Citation Needed' mark.

This Slate article does a great job of explaining how decades of peer reviewed papers on the Inuit all make the mistake of assuming lower cardiovascular disease based on a flawed assumption in a single paper in the 1970s:

Comment: Re:Looks ok to me (Score 1) 229

by Flyskippy1 (#47486421) Attached to: Chicago Red Light Cameras Issue Thousands of Bogus Tickets

even if sentenced .025% of innocent people to death it would be doing far better than current efforts.

Assuming 300M people in the US are innocent people, or at least innocent of a capital crime, sentencing 0.025% of innocent people to death would execute 75000 people. That's about 1000x the current rate of executions, so I think it would be worse than current efforts. :)

Unless you meant that 0.025% of people sentenced to death being innocent would be better then current efforts. That one's probably true.

Comment: Re:Take that Darwin (Score 2) 118

by Flyskippy1 (#45578627) Attached to: Scientists Find Olfactory "Memory" Passed Between Generations In Mice

Yes, I'm trying to be funny. :) Lamarckian evolution (sorry for misspelling it in the original post) is pretty much completely discredited. Though at the time it was a good theory, it lacked a reasonable mechanism. While epigenetics displays some Lamarckian behavior, it doesn't completely fulfill the ability to pass on "acquired traits" and doesn't give the long term changes needed for species differentiation.

And of course Darwin was wrong in some respects. He was just much more correct than anyone before him.

Comment: Re:*sigh* Not Again... (Score 5, Insightful) 515

by Flyskippy1 (#37548420) Attached to: Man Charged in Model Airplane Plot To Bomb Pentagon

Yep, another case of the FBI finding a 'terrorist' by finding a mildly disgruntled guy, giving him fake weapons and explosives, suggesting a terrorist plot to him, and then 'catching' him when he did exactly what they wanted him to do.

Like these guys:

And these guys:

Comment: Keep those Confidential Memos confidential (Score 1) 309

by Flyskippy1 (#33878168) Attached to: Canon Blocks Copy Jobs Using Banned Keywords

I imagine the first terms to be added could be something like "Company Confidential, Do Not Copy" or "Sensitive Business Information".

That said, copiers already block copying of certain patterns, such as US currency. With a little trial and error it's not hard to figure out exactly what on the dollar bill is being matched. Just add it to your documents, and no body will even be able to print them. (Careful, as some brands of printers will lock themselves and require a service call after you try to copy money.)

Comment: Re:How much is your time worth (Score 1) 837

by Flyskippy1 (#27732621) Attached to: Handmade vs. Commercially Produced Ethernet Cables
Yes, the 100m limit was put in place to minimize the amount of time you had to wait to detect a collision, but it was also put in place when people hooked up a chain of computers to the same coaxial cable for their ethernet. Unless you are still using hubs, collisions aren't a huge problem, as the only thing to collide with is yourself. Use a switch and you can go above 100m easily.
The Internet

+ - Are you a victim of Wikipedia deletionists?

Submitted by CowardX10
CowardX10 writes: The recent Slashdot story Call For Halt To Wikipedia Webcomic Deletions combined with the commentary I read for the Wikinews article on this subject made me feel the scope of what's happening in terms of deletionist admins angering and driving away a lot of contributors. I posted the following comment there and now here hoping to get feedback showing that this problem goes far beyond Webcomics.

The assholes have definitely taken over

My friend who used to contribute a lot in terms of articles and even money decided to stop because the deletionist assholes made it such a pain for him that he now despises the site. And although almost none of his contributions were deleted, he hated the way half his time was spent arguing with deletors about his work.

Even Jimbo Whales has experienced this. He started an article on Mzoli's Meats , a butcher shop and restaurant in South Africa. When it was almost speedily deleted, he told the deletors to "excuse themselves from the project and find a new hobby.". In other words, get a life and stop ruining the project. Unfortunately, a bunch of editors added information to the article so it's now kept, saving Jimbo from having to confront either the bitterness many have felt in getting their work destroyed or remaking policy so that people like my friend would continue contributing.

These asshole admins are really making Wikipedia a crappy site, and their effect on valuable editors is worse than what any nasty vandal might do since admins are part of the power hierarchy. This is another valuable lesson in what happens when you give thoughtless small minded people a little power. They make their pronouncements and mass annihilations without any consideration on what the effect might be on a person who has spent sometimes hundreds of man hours creating, maintaining, and protecting his/her articles. They dismiss people by spouting some arbitrary interpretation of policy backed up by their cabals, while those who have better things to do like actually create content get fucked over. James Derk of The Daily Southtown wrote an article where he talks about having a similar experience.

Also, here's a good Slashdot thread illustrating the intellectual dishonesty of the deletionist admins. It is part of the Slashdot story Call For Halt To Wikipedia Webcomic Deletions which is filled with former contributors testifying to their own treatment at the hands of these assholes. It's sad how some people seem to really get off on destroying the work of others.

I think it's interesting how when I don't know about a subject, editing an article on it would be considered vandalism. But it's perfectly OK for the deletors to destroy work relating to things they often know nothing about. Sometimes they even use their very ignorance as justification.

I think Wikipedia has a choice right now. Allow a lot more in than they are currently doing and piss off the deletionists, or let these deletionists have their way and piss off the content creators(And I should add, it's not only deleted articles that are targeted, but plot synopses, trivia sections, clearly permissible images, etc. have all succumbed to the slash and burn mentality of these deletionists.). So Jimbo, who would you rather keep around?

interlard - vt., to intersperse; diversify -- Webster's New World Dictionary Of The American Language