Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:Yet another Ted Cruz bashing article ! (Score 1) 415

by bmo (#49278277) Attached to: Politics Is Poisoning NASA's Ability To Do Science

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It does not in any way require anyone to ignore evidence,, they can perfectly well accept the evidence as part of a more grand scheme that happens to not be scientific.

What's the evidence for YEC? Specifically which evidence is there that the "Earth is 10,000 years old"? Give one example that is not a folk tale. To believe that one must actively avoid all the media, courses, books, and basically everything in our culture that supports evolution.

And BTW, I have to note that back in Darwin's day most naturalists knew that evolution took place, but the debate was over the method by which it happens (whether Lamarck was right or not) and since then, the debate is always over smaller and more precise ways over how it works. YECs look at this debate as if it's a weakness of science and that "well, hurr, they don't actually know anything do they?" Which is an oversimplification and just plain wrong.

As i already pointed out, the evidence being part of the creation for whatever reason is how that can happen. Its no different that 2(1+1) and 2+2 both equalling 4.

Both of your math examples are observationally (in this universe) true irrespective of any folk tales. Claiming that each are equal to 4 can be tested. The claim that the Earth is 10,000 years old cannot - because for every challenge there are excuses made by those that support YEC; not any excuses that can be tested, either. There is absolutely bupkis in evidence outside of fairy tales.^1

Read this: "The Dragon In My Garage."

Science can do nothing about that either because science cannot falsify it.

But there is a difference between unscientific claims and being anti-science, and the people who obstinately believe that YEC is true are truly anti-science. It's exhibited through their actions - that not only do they not believe that the Earth is OLD but you must also believe it's only 10,000 years old (or ~6000 years old (4004 BCE) depending on which lunatic you're talking to). This includes various arguments of the "dragon in my garage" style as exhibited above and such nonsense as the Dover PA school board idiocy. It's the active opposition that makes them anti- something and not just un- something. That's what the actual dictionary definition of "anti-" means.

Anyone trying to claim science disproves religion

  What has been done is that evidence has been presented that the Earth is older than 10,000 years notwithstanding evidence to the contrary. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. It's that scientific conclusions are always contingent on whatever evidence there is, not dogma. YECs have to show at least some evidence that the Earth is as young as they say it is for their point to have any standing. And they can't. Because they have no evidence outside of circular "logic" and outright fraud. I mean, come on, the whole Noah's Ark thing in KY and Discovery Institute BS is all about grift and fleecing the marks (the "true believers")

And what YECs really don't understand is allegory, when you get down to it.

>I'm simply wrong

No, I'm not actually. You're just a troll and IHBT. But whatever. An unused blade becomes rusty.



1. And yet every Sunday I turn on the television set, and there's a priest or a pastor reading from my book, and interpreting it, and their interpretations, I have to tell you, are usually wrong. It's not their fault, because it's not their book. You never see a rabbi on the TV interpreting the New Testament, /do you?/ If you want to truly understand the Old Testament, if there is something you don't quite get, there are /Jews who walk among you,/ and THEY - I promise you this - will take TIME out of their VERY JEWY, JEWY DAY, and interpret for you anything that you're having trouble understanding. And we will do that, if, of course, the price is right.

Was the earth created in seven days? No. For those of you who believe it was, for you Christians, let me tell you that you do not understand the Jewish people. We Jews understand that it did not take place in seven days, and that's because we know what we're good at; and what we're really good at is bullshit. This is a wonderful story that was told to the people in the desert in order to distract them from the fact that they did not have air conditioning. I would LOVE to have the FAITH to believe that it took place in seven days, but - I have /thoughts./ And that can really fuck up the faith thing. Just ask any Catholic priest.

And then, there are fossils. Whenever anybody tries to tell me that they believe it took place in seven days, I reach for a fossil and go, âoeFossil!â And if they keep talking I throw it just over their head.

There are people who believe that dinosaurs and men lived together, that they roamed the earth at the same time. There are museums that children go to in which they build dioramas to show them this. And what this is, purely and simply, is a clinical psychotic reaction. They are crazy. They are stone cold fuck nuts. I canâ(TM)t be kind about this, because these people are watching The Flintstones as if it were a documentary.

-- Lewis Black "Red White and Screwed"

Comment: Re:Yet another Ted Cruz bashing article ! (Score 1) 415

by bmo (#49274047) Attached to: Politics Is Poisoning NASA's Ability To Do Science

You must have a very dificult time with reading comprehension. I never said the concept was scientific, i said you cannot use science to disprove it. Therefore saying the earth is 10,000 years old is not anti science, its just unscientific.

Oh hey look, a semantics argument that is absolutely bereft of logic.

Insisting that the Earth is 10,000 years old /is/ anti-science because it requires one to completely ignore the evidence to the contrary and to embrace a folk tale that is the sole evidence "for" it. It requires vehemently closing one's eyes to the world.

Science requires observation. It's right there in the definition of the "scientific method" as understood by just about anyone with functioning neurons. Refusing to observe is therefore anti-science.

Q.E. motherfucking D.

Now go play in traffic. Because I assure you that if you shut your eyes to the automobiles whizzing around you, they will disappear.


Comment: Guv'nuh Skeletor (Score 1) 366

... is yet another one of the teabagistan nutjobs that make me wonder if there is anyone left in the Republican party that isn't fucking nuts.

I mean, the Democrats aren't any great shakes (I abhor Hillary - she's morphed into just another neocon hawk), but the psychopathy exhibited by those with an R next to their names is just absolutely stunning. I look at the current list of the Presidential candidates that the RNC has foisted upon us voters, and it's a clown-car of bottom-feeding grifters and scumbags.

When they come to NH, I'm going to mosey down the hill to the Barley House (it's a 6 minute walk) just to get my picture taken so I can say "I was there when the animal atop Donald Trump's head ate Scott Walker."


Comment: Re:Dur, how does the World Wide Web work again? (Score 1) 87

by bmo (#49206303) Attached to: Chinese Government Takes Down Anti-Pollution Documentary "Under The Dome"

Did Tim Berners-Lee die in vain?!

No, he died in Washington DC.

BABE: I see ...well, who am us, anyway?

EDDIE: We're one of you, and you're one of us, I think.

JOE: Maybe ...

DC: Possibly ...

BABE: How do you tell? How do you know for sure? How do you ever really know?

JOE: They didn't ask questions like that back in 1776! No, they didn't have time back in 1776! Back in 1776, boy, they were too busy singing songs like...

EDDIE [Singing]:

"Yankee Doodle came to terms,
Writing Martin Buber.
Stuck a Fuhrer in our back,
And called it Shicklegruber!"


Comment: Re:Interpreting these conditions (Score 2) 188

by bmo (#49190883) Attached to: Software Freedom Conservancy Funds GPL Suit Against VMWare

the GPL is largely untested in court.

No it isn't. It's been tested at the federal level.

Daniel Wallace tried to get the GPL declared invalid through stretching of legal concepts, and was thusly shown how stupid /that/ is.

Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp. et al., 467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006), was a significant case in the development of free software. The case decided, at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, that in United States law the GNU General Public License (GPL) did not contravene federal antitrust laws. Daniel Wallace, a United States citizen, sued the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for price fixing. In a later lawsuit, he unsuccessfully sued IBM, Novell, and Red Hat. Wallace claimed that free Linux prevented him from making a profit from selling his own operating system.[1]

And this quote from the decision shows that the courts completely understand the values behind the GPL and copyleft.

From the 7'th Circuit decision of the Wallace vs. IBM appeal:
  People may make and distribute derivative works if and only if they come under the same license terms as the original work. Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. Copyright law, usually the basis of limiting reproduction in order to collect a fee, ensures that open-source software remains free: any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted the GPL. The Free Software Foundation calls the result âoecopyleft.â

And notice the subsequent utter silence from Darl and the lawyers at SCO, who were jumping up and down about the so-called unconstitutionality of the GPL. Among other things.

The validity of the GPL is now settled law.

but any element of it that is reasonably subject to interpretation can be interpreted any way you like

This is why you aren't a lawyer.

BMO - not a lawyer, but someone who doesn't agree with people who think that lawyers perform magic. They don't.

Comment: Re:Gaming on Linux will matter... (Score 3, Informative) 199

by bmo (#49138667) Attached to: The State of Linux Gaming In the SteamOS Era

>Worthy Office Competitor

Most people don't need anything more than Google Docs.

>but muh obscure Word function

If you're using something obscure in modern versions of Office, you're going to lose when you try to share the document with /other/ Office users. And don't even get me started on formatting when everyone and his brother has slightly different fonts installed (well, it certainly seems that way).

Most (sane) offices have standardized on Office 97 formats, out of desperation with Microsoft's ever changing formats. Office 97's formats are well known and well handled by Office alternatives.

>Windows 10 looks very good

It does? When the icons look like they've been done in Paint?

The Oxygen icons in KDE are better.


Sorry, OpenGL is still better.


Comment: Re:What's the alternative? (Score 1) 270

by bmo (#49135997) Attached to: It's Official: NSA Spying Is Hurting the US Tech Economy

If you live in the US or various other countries the Chinese also have nuclear weapons aimed at you.

I lived through the cold war. I am going on 50 years old, and I've heard all this bullshit before multiple times in various different inflections and languages.

And that's what it is. Bullshit. Bullshit spouted by people who work for the government and defense contractors who want the big teat of corporate welfare to the war machine to keep on keepin' on.

Fuck you.

Shut the fuck up. My god.


Comment: Re:Actually, ADM Rogers doesn't "want" that at all (Score 1) 406

by bmo (#49124005) Attached to: NSA Director Wants Legal Right To Snoop On Encrypted Data

Do you understand that an individualized warrant is required to target, collect, store, analyze, or disseminate the communications content of a US Person anywhere on the globe, and that the current law on the issue is stronger and more restrictive with regard to US Persons than it has ever been?

Whether a warrant is required or not is irrelevant when the agency itself ignores such laws as "inefficient."

It has been proven that they log everything (what used to be called a pen register) and admit to it ("it's only metadata, why should you care?" we are told), and I've previously calculated how much data they'd need to record any person's utterances 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and it came out to something like 5 bucks the last time, assuming that someone talked continuously without sleep or stopping to breathe . It's less now because single 4 terabyte hard disks are available for $132 at Newegg, retail and a top-of-the-line enterprise quality 8TB disk with helium goes for under $750. And these are retail prices.

Don't believe me? 16Kb/s for that amount of time is roughly 64GB (516.7E9 bits no parity). So being generous, say we lose 500GB to formatting a 4TB drive, 3500 Salesman Gigabytes.

3500/64=54.blahblah 1 year partitions.


Less than an Extra Large Dunkin Donuts coffee.

For a year.

But wait there's more.

People don't talk 24 hours a day. They talk on average about 16000 words a day, according to this:


So what amount of time does that mean? It means about an hour-and-a-half of speaking at 3 words/second (which is average). 1/16'th of a day.

So take all of that $2.44, and divide it by 16

15 cents.

That's all it takes to store your utterances for an entire year. Half that if you really don't give a fuck about voice quality.

For the entire nation, which is 319 million, that gives $48 million to record everyone's utterances for an entire year. If you only record what is said on the phone, it's a tiny fraction of that.


This does not include all the other stuff like connection to the networks, but that is all externalized by requiring the phone companies, etc, to take the bulk of that cost on themselves.

And by looking at that huge datacenter in Utah, they are already doing it and doubling-down on the methodology.

They don't give a flying fuck about warrants as we've seen, and it's technically and financially feasible, so they'll do it / are doing it.


Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.