Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:It works both ways (Score 1) 849

To whoever modded me "troll", I'll explain my position this much further:

You don't get to step on the Constitutional rights of one group in order to uphold another.

It doesn't work that way. Trying to do so will inevitably backfire. You set a terrible precedent, and weaken everybody's rights, including your own, when you do that.

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." -- Thomas Jefferson

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 759

For some reason Jane doesn't seem to grasp the irony of him lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

Since you consider yourself to be a scientist, maybe I can use you for an example of how scientists think?

You have VERY frequently demonstrated that you appear to think repeating the same false thing in public over and over again somehow makes it more true.

I assure you, it's not.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 759

Jane, that's the most charitable explanation for all your baseless accusations.

You have not once demonstrated that any of my "accusations", as you call them, were in any way "baseless".

Saying my comments were baseless is a bald-faced lie. One which you know to be a lie.

That's something that is (at least in the moral sense) called libel. Knock it off.

I'm not accusing you of libel in any legal sense. At least not yet. If I do, I'm not the person you will hear about it from.

Comment: Re:It works both ways (Score 0) 849

If GenCon moves because of this bill, I will make it a point not to attend GenCon.

I am with you on this. I do not perceive it to be an anti-gay bill at all, but rather a bill that protects religious freedom.

I'm no religious nut myself, nevertheless forcing people to do things that violate their genuine religious beliefs is the opposite of "tolerance".

Comment: Re:Not comprehensive (Score 1) 91

As you can see, a PhD physicist has already said that "RespekMyAthorati" is wrong. But feel free to keep accusing me of being six different people. The irony is delicious.

I didn't "accuse you" but I did suggest the possibility. More than just a possibility, really.

And I find the "coincidence" (as I explained above) of him answering for you to be just a bit too unlikely. Actually, I think it's damned near impossible. Of course "nearly impossible" happens all the time in this world, but Slashdot is not the entire world.

You have also been caught sock-puppeting before. So that should be no surprise to anyone, either.

And it hardly surprises me that you would contradict yourself. You did it a lot when we were actually having our Spencer discussion. You never admitted it, but as I have stated before, it's all a matter of record.

Unlike you, while I certainly have made mistakes, and changed my mind on some issues over the years, I have been happy to admit it when that actually happens.

Comment: Re:Totally agree with Bechdel (Score 5, Insightful) 515

by Jane Q. Public (#49332123) Attached to: A Bechdel Test For Programmers?

That is the crux of the problem, that you do not care.

Absolute nonsense. No programmer I know gives the slightest damn who wrote a function they use. They just want it to work. And that's the proper way to look at it.

Insisting that a program include functions written by women that access other functions written by women is by definition sexist. The opposite of sexism isn't more sexism in the opposite direction... it's truly not caring.

You don't fight discrimination by institutionalizing discrimination. It hasn't worked, and it doesn't work. You fight discrimination by eliminating its consideration.

I no more care whether a software tool I use was written by a woman or a man than I care whether a bolt or a piece of material used in a weekend project was made by a woman or a man. It just has to work. Who made it is completely irrelevant... and should be.

Comment: Re:Not comprehensive (Score 0) 91

Really? Where did "RespekMyAthorati" claim to be a PhD physicist?

Well, let's see if the rest of Slashdot has much of a problem with this logic:

For years now, I have had ONE person claiming to be a physicist, who seems to care (understatement; "obsessed" would be more accurate) about who he thinks I am outside of Slashdot, and who likes to argue -- nay, insists upon arguing -- fallaciously about physics.

And along comes "RespekMyAthorati", with marvellously coincidental timing, who apparently also likes to argue fallaciously about physics, and who also seems to care about some person outside of Slashdot who he thinks is me.

Rather astounding coincidence, wouldn't you say?

I would. I bet if I put together a group of Slashdotters, and showed this to them, they would conclude that the one account is very likely (understatement again) a sock-puppet of the other.

And I know you don't seem to care, but Slashdotters don't think very highly of sock-puppetry.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 0) 759

Once again, all I did there was substitute the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation. So if you're not disputing the definition of the word "net", you must agree with that simple substitution. Right?

I neither agree or disagree. I'm not even reading your entire comments. I have no reason to.

I solved the problem we discussed using standard textbook radiative physics methods. I have ZERO reason to go back and try to do it the "Khayman80" way, which is not exactly what I would call "standard" methodology. The textbook way is fine by me and I'm sticking with it.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 759

Once again, you disputed my simple substitution of the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation, and simultaneously insisted that you don't dispute the standard physics definition.

No. You do NOT get to take my words out of context, insert your own later comments around them, then try to argue that I said something I explained to you in plain English that I did not mean in the context you are trying to portray them.

That's called LYING, man. Or worse.

We already had this argument, and you lost. End of story. Go the fuck away, and leave me alone.

Comment: Re:this person is full of shit. (Score 1) 331

Or are you?

No, of course not. But this discussion was about "the internet" hopelessly damaging children. I don't put "the internet" in quite the same category as automobiles.

Hey, I know kids that were addicted. I know one kid (who is no longer a kid) who was hopelessly addicted to video games. And he still is obsessed to what I feel to be an unhealthy degree with video games.

But he is an exception. I know far more kids who aren't like that at all.

Comment: Re:Not comprehensive (Score 0) 91

And I just literally stumbled on this little gem. I wasn't even looking for anything, it was just a mis-click. RespekMyAthorati says:

Holy shit.
The second law says exactly the opposite: namely that entropy in a closed system will always increase over time, so that complexity and information content will always decrease.


This guy's supposed to be a PhD physicist, and he doesn't know how information relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics!

Apparently RespekMyAthorati has never heard of "event horizons" and why those were a big theoretical problem for physics, because of the information loss.

Gotcha again, dude! And I'm no physicist. Never claimed to be. But I sure seem to know more about it than you do.

If you keep losing arguments this spectacularly, you're probably going to have to give back that degree.

It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65)