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


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

Comment Re:Comparison? (Score 1) 254

Complex dark matter, chum... Apparently the dark matter isn't enough to balance the gravity calculations out... it has to be 'complex' now. The epicycles (a reference you'll get if you're half as informed as you presume to be) have been building on this issue for awhile... I only hope I'm alive to see it all come tumbling down.

Your position is based on a dozen theoretical particles you have no empirical evidence for existing... and a fractal imprecision in your calculations that every time you correct the error with another made up particle or force that you can't actually show exists beyond needing it to exist to sustain the theory... every time you do it... there is another layer of imprecision below that necessitating another invented particle or force... and so on and so on and so on.

All I'd like out of you is a little more science and a little less make believe. And before you tell me cosmology is a hard science... is that an argument you can make to other physicists with a straight face? Because if so... know they laugh at you behind your back.

Just FYI.

Comment Re:And who was the big believer in carbon credits? (Score 1) 150

You don't understand what accuracy, precision, causation, or correlation means.

As such you really can't have this discussion.

Here is your point. You want a TAX for emissions. You are not internalizing anything. You're leveling a tax.

You want to call you tax "internalizing"... fine. I'm going to ignore any further use of that term because given that you don't know the required concepts to make the statement you can't use that term. So I'm going to just read that as 'taxing".

Which again is fine. You can tax anything. You can take people for breathing or tax people for walking or tax anything else. A tax is an entirely arbitary fee that can be levied for any reason to any amount ... including all of your money for "because".

We can debate the merits of these taxes if you like. But I'm not going to waste any more time arguing over terms. I reject your use of the term internalizing and will ignore any further commentary on the issue of whether anything is or is not internalized from you.

Full stop.

Comment I disagree that this tool should be illegal (Score 3, Insightful) 45

that it should be illegal to use it against someone against their will... sure.

But to even own it? No.

You can't do system testing without tools that are effectively hack tools. And even if you've no good reason to have it, it isn't the government's place to say what programs we have or don't have.

Comment Re:And who was the big believer in carbon credits? (Score 1) 150

Actually uncle sam does need causation to tax my income. He has to show that I actually earned X dollars.

And on that basis am I charged a percentage of that X.

What you're trying to do is ASSUME my damage from my emissions... particularly to cancer rates etc which you can't know and you clearly don't care. You just want to level a fine for emitting certain gases.

And that's fine. Admit it and we'll talk about that.

But you're not internalizing costs if you do that. You're just leveling a fine for X emissions. You can show that clearly. You can say "you emitted X amount of Y chemical"... and we have a tax of Z for every X of Y chemical emitted. Done.

I have no problem with you doing that. But you're not internalizing costs. To internalize a cost implies that you know what the costs are per emission or at least per power plant and not as some median average but that that power plant is personally responsible for...

And you can't possibly know that which means you can't internalize the cost. You can't. Its not fucking possible without that information.

Which means you have to assume. And that's fine. Tell me you're assuming and make it clear you're assuming. Don't tell me you know when you don't know.

And then once we've admitted we're assuming and once we've admitting that we're just leveling an arbitary tax based on that assumption... Fine. Level that tax.

But a taxing someone is not internalizing costs.

My problem with you is not what you're doing but the argument you're using for the thing you're doing. Its sophistry. You're spinning this weird argument to justify your position that is fallacious.

Comment Re: Just block any country that makes these claims (Score 1) 690

I've already bypassed google. Did it years ago for other reasons.

Look, if you think you can impose censorship on the internet in general.... that's a declaration of war. That's a threat to sneak in my window at night and cut my throat.

Attempts to censor must be rebuffed with extreme prejudice. And if any organization caves to such pressure then they need to THEMSELVES be bypassed.

Filter web addresses or start otherwise dicking with DNS tables and we'll bypass your meddling. No one says we have to use your version of the DNS tables. We can use our own versions. And there are augmented DNS tables already being used extensively. So go ahead and fuck with ICANN all you like. All you'll do is make them irrelevant.

And as to big corporations that will do anything for ad revenue in country X or Y... We'll see how that plays out. If they do truly sell out then they'll be bypassed. But if they want to retain their credibility then they can't dot that.

The german facebook example has facebook censoring the GERMAN version of the site... not even removing content. Just making it so germans can't see it. I'm fine with that. Have the internet say "page not found" for any country if that's how they want the internet to work. I don't care about them. You protect your OWN freedoms. You can't protect anyone else's. Best case if you succeed they little shits don't respect that blood was often as not shed to provide the freedom so they're going to trade it away for nothing.

As to india suing google... cite the lawsuit... I found something about india wanting google to not carry sex selection ads... that's not censorship of the internet for ME. That's censorship of the internet for Indians.

If the indians think they can control sex selection procedures with censorship then have fun with that idea. I can't imagine how they think that will work. But regardless I don't care... that's their own country and I have no real opinion on what they do over there.

Comment Re:SEEN for the first time (Score 0) 243

I have not received your plus 1000 mod points as yet... I appear to be getting modded down. :-D

Doubtless I'm getting modded down by one of three different groups of idiots.

Group 1 perceives I'm being mean to idiots and they don't like that because they think we should coddle them even when they fuck up society.

Group 2 knows that they're full of shit on so many issues and feel threatened by any call to increase ethical or competence standards to the point where they would actually be meaningful... and thus shut these sophists out of any serious discussion.

Group 3 is composed entirely of autistic people that perceive my post as not being 100.000000000000000000% on topic and therefore want to down vote me for not talking specifically and exclusively about a given thing even though the issue touches on something more relevant and everything wrong with the post was caused by a larger ongoing phenomenon.

So which ever group of fuckwits is doing it... Allow me to pop the double bird and tell you to kiss my ass.

Comment Re:A silly test (Score 1) 425

Jesus fucking christ... next time I don't remember the name of the plane I won't preface that I didn't remember and then guess...

What I meant was this plane:
Henschel Hs 129

That's actually what I referring to from the beginning though I didn't remember the name or model number of the fucking airplane.

Comment SEEN for the first time (Score 3, Insightful) 243

The implication is that this is the first time this has happened... when in fact it was merely the first time it was SEEN to happen.

A bunch of hurricanes forming out at sea which is something you could only see from space in the first place.

Golf clap for the editors. Nice try.

This is akin to the talks about how "cancer rates are going up in the third world"... or something of that nature when really what is happening is that "DETECTION rates of cancer going up in the third world" You have no idea what the cancer rate was before that.

Here is a fundemental problem we're having in the 21st century. We have more access to data and infomation and analytics than we've had since ever. But the education of people to understand what the data actually means is shockingly poor.

Journalists are just about the worst. Literally kill yourselves if you fail to grasp the distinction between correlation and causation... I'll wait for about 98 percent of you to off yourselves.

But politicians make this mistake all the time... sometimes intentionally which is also unacceptable.

And then you see some scientists doing it either because they're ignorant which is something people don't think scientists can be... but they're demonstrably ignorant when they don't grasp the distinction between causation and correlation which has been shown to be something they didn't understand on many occasions... Completely unacceptable. And then you'll see them sometimes do it intentionally to make their papers sound more interesting.

How many papers should be saying something along the lines of "variable X appears to move in conjunction with variable Y"... as opposed to the all too common "variable X went up because variable Y went up"... Never mind that they were unable to actually establish that anywhere in their paper.

So many papers boil down to something stupid like "Sniffles cause colds because people with more sniffles tend to have colds."

That's correlation, fucktards.

Logic, motherfucker.

Comment Re: Just block any country that makes these claims (Score 1) 690

The issue is freedom of speech and censorship. If my freedoms are limited to the least common demonstrator in the world then effectively other more authoritarian societies can limit my freedom

I will not tolerate that.

I don't really care about facebook. I don't see it as central. My concern is whether it is considered valid for country X to sue company Y because content Z is being posted on their social network.

That concerns me. However, so long as the context of this restricts the government from banning the content generally... I don't care.

Country X can censor the shit out of themselves. Go full north korea on it if you want. I really don't care so long as I don't live in country X.

People that think they protect themselves with censorship are cattle. I have no patience for their nonsense and care nothing for their self mutilations so long as they don't presume to impose them on me as well.

They can cut their dicks off for all I care. Just know that if the blade comes near me... I'm going to put it in someone's eye.

Comment Ignore it. (Score 1) 2

I get modded down every once in awhile but typically the worst I have to deal with is getting modded down by 10 people and then modded up by 10 other people.

Its rare that my karma rating dips below excellent. I actually would like higher ratings because I generally get positive ratings. Every so often I'll say something that offends the political sensibilities of some group... and that causes a down vote dog pile. But even then I tend to get lots of up votes by other people. /. used to have a bigger problem with one sided political brigades shutting down any discussion that didn't conform. Its a lot better now mostly because there seems to be balancing factions that nullify the effect of the brigades through mutual annihilation.

Anyway, I take up and down votes as interest and a sign that someone actually read what I wrote more than anything. Down votes and up votes are equal to me.

Comment Re:Nothing open to the sky (Score 1) 116

No. You just need to have vitamin D in the food.

Just giving the prisoners dairy products fortified with vitamin D will probably be all you need to do.

What is more, I'm not saying no light... I'm saying nothing open to the sky. You can have sky lights or even build your rec center like a giant green house. Fucking fill the thing with plants if that makes you happy.

Ultimately, the prisons will probably have anti drone defenses installed. Basically stationary drones that have motion tracking and if they see some thing moving around the yard they can train on it, alert guards, and if desired possibly shoot the drone down.

But just being aware that the drone was there and where it was is probably all that is needed. If the guards know a drone was dropping stuff in the yard and where it was dropped then they should be able to remove whatever it was before prisoners can pick it up.

Comment Re:A silly test (Score 1) 425

First, the allies referred to the Panzer as a specific tank model.

Secondly, actually what was relevant was that the allies prevented the Germans from having air superiority. The US and English planes were not decisive in the break out... however, if the Germans had had free air reign over the battlefield then they might have pushed the allies back. There is a distinction.

Third, as to the allied bombing campaign to f' up the germans in any way possible... sure. Total war. If the NAZIs had not been driven back they would have gotten nuked. Count on it.

As to the effectiveness of combined arms... of course. Often the allies would break a german fixed defense with artillery, dive bombers, or infantry. Just because I say the Sherman is underrated and the tank crews suffered fewer losses than any other tank in service in the war on either side... that doesn't mean they were the only relevant weapon. Everything matters. I'm just saying the Sherman was actually quite good at doing what it was designed to do which was charge fixed defenses and/or engage german tanks.

Did the Sherman have an inferior gun to the Germans? Sure. But it had superior mobility. And something that is not appreciated is that the German armor while thick in material was actually designed very poorly. They didn't slope their armor. Their tanks were full of these flat perpendicular surfaces which would have been vastly better defended if they were sloped or if they just wanted to retain the same defense they could have radically cut the weight by sloping the armor.

The Sherman had sloped armor. If you look at the front armor... The gladius on the Sherman had an effective 47"s of armor. And that's what you point at the enemy tanks. That's roughly similar to the fucking tiger itself.

Did the germans have bigger guns? Sure. And german guns shooting at german tanks would have seen the german guns go through the german tanks as easily as the US tanks.

The difference was that the US tanks were remarkably lighter which made them faster and more manuverable and thus better able to attack and retreat.

Did Shermans often need to hit enemy tanks on the sides to breach them? Yes. But frankly that wasn't uncommon. A lot of shots would bounce off the front of a sherman as well. Most of the bad damage you see on shermans is on their SIDES just like the german tanks.

The formative work on this whole "shermans are shit" argument is a book from a guy that was tasked during WW2 to look at battle damage to KILLED sherman tanks. That's who that guy was... he wasn't in the battles. He didn't see the shots bouncing off the tanks. He was looking at dead US tanks after the battles. And what he also wasn't taking into consideration was that very few of the US tankers were actually dying in those hits when compared to the Germans and Russians.

The US tanks had excellent escape hatches. They opened quickly and were right in front of the tankers so they could just get the fuck out. And when they got out they had their helmets on and everything.

There were stories of US tankers that would lose several tanks in a day. That is, the same poor bastard would go out in a tank... get it destroyed... escape it... come back to base... get a new tank... rise and repeat three or four times in a day. That didn't happen in any other service because other people didn't survive that kind of punishment.

Were a lot of Shermans lost in some battles? Yep. Especially the "hedge rows" out of Normandy were a nightmare. But a lot of that was about poor maneuverability because of the hedge rows as well as poor visibility because of the hedge rows. That was a worst case scenario and its sort of like judging how effective a deep sea war ship is when it has to fight in shallow reefs. I mean, you can do it... its just not a great idea.

The Sherman had a problem in the hedge rows when it was employed alone. It did very well when it was used with combined arms of air power, infantry, and especially heavy artillery.

In practice, the first tank to hit another tank in WW2 WON that tank duel. Even if the first shot didn't penetrate. The tank that would fire first often would land a second shot before the first tank even got its first shot off.

In a five year period we can get one superb programming language. Only we can't control when the five year period will begin.