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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment Go look somewhere else [Re: Violence!] (Score 4, Insightful) 503

Why don't you list the fucking real atrocities that are going in Syria, or in Africa, or in 100 other places where there is conflict in the world.

When the first response to an accusation is "why aren't you looking at some different crime some different place," I read this as an acknowledgement that the accusation is accurate.

Comment The Opposite (Score 4, Insightful) 247

The summary states "The average time people spend at one job has been trending downward for a long time.
but the site that is linked to this statement shows the opposite: it says the average time people spend at one job has been slowly trending upward, rising from 3.5 years in 1983 to 4.6 years in 2012, the last year for which figures are available.

The article linked seems to think that the upward trend is significant, but I think it's easily explained. Younger workers change jobs more frequently, and hence the length of time spent at a job increases as a worker gets older (according to the same site, "Over half of workers age 55 to 64 and those age 65 and over had 10 years or more of tenure in 2012, compared with fewer than 10% of workers in their 20s and 30s."). So that upward trend is just the demographic bulge (the "baby boomers") getting older. I expect that number to drop when more of the baby boomers retire, and the people who started working in the 2000s start making up more of the workers surveyed.

Comment You're right on that: Israel doesn't care (Score 3, Insightful) 503

I think nearly everyone that's commented on this so far has either missed the point, gone off the deep end, or strayed way off topic.

Israel is not trying to censor speech. They're trying to stop incitement.

... by censorship.

In other words, they're trying to stop predominantly arabic language terrorist recruiting and training material.

Trying to stop people from saying something you don't want them to say is known as "censorship". What you're saying here is "I think that in this case censorship is justified."

I admit to some mixed feelings here. I'd like to see videos recruiting people to terrorism pulled down... but I'm skeptical about giving anybody the authority to decide which videos, because that authority can be misused. As has been pointed out, freedom of speech really isn't freedom of speech until it includes allowing people to say things that you personally don't like.

I'm afraid I'd err on the side of freedom here. I don't know if I can trust the government-- any government, but least of all the Israeli government--with the power to decide what to censor.

Comment Re:Zionists (Score 1) 503

If Google supports the genocide of Pakistanis by Israelis then

Well, this article is about Palestinians. I don't know of Israelis killing Pakistanis.

It's also a little unclear what Google/Youtube's response was. Running that article through translate, it's not clear that their meeting resulted in anything more concrete than their saying "if an video violates our terms of service, here's how to report it."

Comment Obvious idea (Score 5, Interesting) 443

Actually, I'm surprised that it's taken so long for this idea to be tried.

LSD was the first of the serotonin-modification drugs to be discovered; and apparently the most potent of them. The problem with LSD use in the '50s and '60s was that the doses were so high that the users went off on psychedelic trips. Serotonin modification drugs developed later, starting with the SSRI family such as Prozac and its derivatives and work-alike compounds, turned out to be very valuable in treating depression (although they have their own side effects). The idea of switching back to the original serotonin-modification drug, LSD, but using it at a dosage that doesn't cause the tripping, always seemed like an obvious approach to try.

Comment Re:Energy cost [Re:Cost of access is key.] (Score 1) 372

Where are you getting $0.10 per KWH?

The other poster gave some enlightening information on boosters and propellants please give us more details.

I was not addressing boosters or propellants. I was addressing a single point, that "the shear amount of energy" is the problem. There are indeed reasons that getting into orbit is expensive. But the amount of energy, in itself, is not a major cost.

Comment Energy cost [Re:Cost of access is key.] (Score 1) 372

In other words, you can't cheat gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. No one seems to listen, but my initial assessment is that the shear amount of energy required to launch a viable space colony is going to be prohibitive.

Orbital velocity is about 7.8 km/sec, so the energy cost of getting into orbit is 1/2mv^2 = 30 MJ/kg, or about 8.5 kW-hr/kg. At an energy cost of 10 cents per kilowatt hour, that would be an energy cost slightly under a dollar a kilogram.

Energy cost, in and of itself, is not the problem.

Comment Polynesian expansion across the Pacific (Score 2) 372

And the Polynesian Islands were populated before Europe had boats.

No, they weren't.

"Polynesian ancestors settled in Samoa around 800 BC, colonized the central Society Islands between AD 1025 and 1120 and dispersed to New Zealand, Hawaii and Rapa Nui and other locations between AD 1190 and 1290."

Your Eurocentric view is blocking you from seeing that explorers predate Columbus and made ocean crossings long before

Yes, that part is right.

Comment Cost of access is key. (Score 2) 372

Right now, the barrier to increasing use of space is the cost of launch. It's indeed true that, with launch costs at their current levels, utilization of space resources isn't likely to be commercially viable (at least, not for applications other than the ones already being done, such as observation and communication.)
The critical question is, can the cost of getting to space be reduced? And if so, by how much?

Comment Re:Space Ship One? (Score 1) 121

Oops, good point, that should have been mentioned indeed. In my defense, I'll say that this was a quote I pulled from the Geekwire article (which has since, to their credit, been revised)
SpaceShipOne re-used everything except the actual rocket engine (that is, the combustion chamber and ablative nozzle) which was replaced for each flight (much like a model rocket, now that I think of it).

Submission + - Blue Origin "New Shepherd" makes it to space... and back again

Geoffrey.landis writes: Blue Origin's "New Shepherd" suborbital vehicle made its first flight into space (defined as 100 km altitude)... and successfully landed both the capsule (by parachute) and the booster rocket (vertical landing under rocket power). This is the first time that a vehicle has made it into space and had all components fully recovered for reuse since the NASA flights of the X-15 in the 1960s.
Check out the videos at various places on the web

Comment Yes, he was arrested [Re:That won't last long...] (Score 5, Informative) 815

The school certainly overreacted, but...

1) the kid was not arrested

Yes, he was. He was taken away from the school by the police in handcuffs. That's an arrest.

I think what you meant to say was, the kid was not charged. That's correct. He was arrested, but released without charges.

Comment Citation needed. (Score 2) 108

Do you have a source for this? I do like the fact that they are trying to close the loophole before it is implemented but I can find little to back up your claim.

You might try to do your own homework at, where everything is published for all to see.

No, when you cite an alleged fact, you should give the citation.

Presumably you have a citation, if it's a real fact and not something you made up. When you don't provide it, a pretty good guess is that either
(1) it's something you just made up, and hence I shouldn't waste my time to try to track the non-existent fact down with an internet search, or
(2) it was too much trouble for you to do the internet search to find-- and if it was too hard for you to find, being sarcastic about why I won't spend my time finding it is completely hypocritical.

Executive summary: when you cite a fact, it is your burden of proof to provide the citation.

The first version always gets thrown away.