Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not expecting nor will get any sympathy. (Score 1) 389

by Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (#46798683) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Hungry Students, How Common?

You reminded me of the survivor fallacy.

A Polish engineer/mathematician was hired by the US air force during WW2. His mission was to make US airplanes stay in the air longer. He was shown a bunch of planes which had returned safely from missions. Some of them had many bullet holes. His commander told him that he thought the best plan was to reinforce the bullet pierced areas with thicker plating.

The engineer objected and suggested instead: The bullet holes indicate that the pierced areas need no additional plating. After all, the planes with bullet holes here returned safely. Look instead into reinforcing areas without bulletholes, as if a plane was downed surely it must've been struck somewhere where these planes were not.

Comment: Re:The Religious Right will have your head on a pl (Score 2) 470

I bet a major reason why conservatives are into organized religion is because organized religion is by its nature authoritarian.

By contrast, pagan and new age stuff are pretty much anti-authoritarian and very individualist (but just as stupid as organized religion).

Comment: Re:Max RAM? (Score 1) 353

Video editing?

I see you have yet to enter the wonderful world of sample based orchestration.

I could easily max out 128 GB of ram. If I'm feeling excessive I could probably reach 256 GB, but then I'd have to do silly things like loading even articulations I don't use.

And I'm working with relatively low-end sample sets. I don't know the maximum size of, say, the VSL collection, but I bet about two terrabytes are necessary for perfectly fluid playback of the whole thing.

(currently i suffer with only 12 GB of ram and it really strains the capacity. I have to cycle out instruments from ram as I work on my tracks when I run out of ram)

Comment: Reminds me of a character on a particular website (Score 3, Insightful) 517

On a Swedish now defunct website for political discussion there used to hang out a Crazy radical feminist woman who had a Universal Theory of science.

In her opinion, it was impossible to say what is science and what is not and as such nobody has the power to say that something is scientific and something else isn't. To her, everything is scientific and the people who disagree are proponents of "scientism".

This tied in with the radical feminist angle because she also argued that science as it currently exists has been overtaken by men and now serves only male and masculine purposes such as technology and weapons. She elaborates that male science is destructive because it picks things apart to understand how they work and it creates destructive inventions.

She says that female science, by contrast, does not pick anything apart. Instead it would look at things and examine them as a whole, and come to answers using hermeneutic analysis. (hint: it means you sit around and talk about it for a long time)

Her ultimate point is that she believes it is not right to call something non-scientific simply because it cannot be empirically tested.

She also got into weird and ultimately bizarre postmodernist arguments such as if someone believed a partcular treatment actually helped them, then the treatment was effective. She was strongly pro-homeopathy, crystal healing and whatever.

(she also drove everyone insane by writing in 50 word sentences)

The first version always gets thrown away.

Working...