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


Forgot your password?

Comment Doubtful claim (Score 1) 184 184

The paint repellent urine is not that it bounces back like a wile e coyote gag (how would it? You would have to make the urine and wall a near 100% elastic collision and as a liquid against a solid good luck) in fact video make it clear that he is only projecting the test liquid with force and it barely backs a bit ( No the things is that the urine is much easier washed up. It is highly hydrophobic, but ti does not change that the water will not have an elastic collision. In other word, it barely spring back. Pee from 1 foot away and you are safe.

Comment Software Priesthood (Score 1) 349 349

The whole thrust of ESR's Cathedral and the Bazaar essay...

You're about 30 years late WRT your reference. When I said "back in the day"...

I first saw the term "software priesthood" in print in Byte magazine -- it was 1976, I think. It was already in play among those of us who had already been programming for a while, and even more so among certain sectors of management.

Comment MUtation rate are known (Score 2) 274 274

Please tells us how many million of years statistically you would need to go from a barley growth factor, to a rice growth factor, and would even the intermediate protein be viable (active) or even if the surrounding gene would still be active.

Yes stuff mutate. That is how we got from bacteria to human over billion of year. The key here is that function of protein evolved too, and sometime mutation are deleterious, and sometime function changes. But if both are sufficiently different, the probability to go from one to the other over statistically human relevant time (e.g. hundreds of year) is trending toward zero. In some case like when researcher inserted fish gene into tomatoe, that probability becomes even low over geological time.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your assessment that the probability we make something catastrophic is relatively low, but stating that the result could be gotten by random mutation in the wild, or even breeding is overstating it , downright to a lie in many case.

Comment There is a slight difference (Score 0) 274 274

Look I am for GMO because I think the science is sound, and it is maybe as good a progress for the 21th century as the haber process was for the 20th century for food production, but repeating the often trotted "breeding/wild mutation is the same as GMO" is stupid. Even idiot religiously fearing GMO are not that idiot to swallow that you can breed in nature fish protein into tobaccoe plant by cross breeding or wild reproduction, or plant with philia so far away from each other with barley growth factor if the growth factor are so much different. So you should not tell a totally complete lie. Such naturally mutation can only slightly change protein and not suddenly put new protein from a completely different specie or even philia suddenly in the plant. You would need million maybe 10s of million of years to get such accumulated mutation (if ever in the fish protein case), and anybody can see that such very long term adaptation has a different impact on an ecosystem than immediate gene change. I am not saying this is a bad thing, just that comparing the two is stupid. There is a difference of time scale, and adaptation in both case, and as well as what you can reach as far as changes go.

Please just don't. Refrain in future. You are just making it more difficult for us to convince the GMO fearing when you spread such obvious bad comparison.

Comment Re:use this one neat trick (Score 4, Insightful) 349 349

Back in the day, we called this concept the "Software Preisthood"

It wasn't complementary.

1) I am not threatened by "everyone" learning to program

2) don't buy a bunch of stupid apps, and,

3) Apparently, you're a programmer, so write your own apps. :)

Comment Re:Yay no more stupid videos! (Score 1) 549 549

Videos are 5x slower than reading

Yep. And they're extremely difficult to deal with contextually, unless you take the time to generate a full transcript - ugh. So (a) waste your time watching, (b) waste your time writing up a transcript, (c) take the time to post... and (d) everyone has already moved on.

Most video "stories" are for droolers. If you can't write it up, it often isn't worth saying. Exceptions being movies of Pluto, that sort of science-y goodness. I don't think I've ever seen *anything* on the idiot box that was worth a full page of actual cogent explanation. And "interviews".... ffs, just write it down.

Comment Our value is community. Not the broken site. (Score 0, Offtopic) 549 549

Perhaps the new owners will finally fix the massively broken and stupid moderation system that the previous and current owners have left bereft of badly needed attention:

o Moderators can't post with ID. Stupid. Utterly, completely, stupid. Pointless. Ridiculous.
o Moderators have zero accountability for what they've done -- only for what they might do later
o Absolutely no effective mechanism to remove bad moderation (and that really screws up threads here)
o AC's unjustly penalized, many of the site's best posts never rise above the noise level
o Trolls go un-handled -- the AC low-runging is a punt at not having to work at moderation. But it doesn't work.
o Perversely limited set of mod types leaves moderators unable to moderate reasonably
o Limits on mod ranges penalize the very best posts (and don't adequately address the trolls, either, because...
o On slashdot, troll is effectively equal to AC with one person disagreeing, and...
o Because we can't attribute the "disagree" to the mod, it can't be remediated except by the...
o Random and future-behavior-only-focused meta moderation system.

And then we have:

o Ridiculous delays between posts for ACs AND for logged-in users. Big convo? Too bad for you.
o Inability STILL to handle many character entities after all these years. Not to mention UTF-*8, omg.
o Retarded signature limits. C'mon. Bad sigs should be moderated. It takes a lot of chars to use HTML.

And of course there are the short-bus elephants in the room:

o "Editors" that know nothing about editing. Or writing. Or what constitutes a "story"
o The "firehose", a way to vote up stuff that won't get posted -- can be a total waste of time
o And the continuous mucking about with the parts that worked, making them NOT work,
      while all of the above, which ACTUALLY needs fixing, goes unfixed.

I'd fire the bloody lot of them, frankly.

Comment Re:Even better news for China (Score 3, Insightful) 97 97

It doesnt matter if those countries get 100 bucks if 99 of them end up going back to cost of manufacturing.

Part of "cost of manufacturing" is paying workers. There and here. So it does matter. When my $100 goes there instead of here, our economy takes a hit. Tiny, sure, but when it's thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of "whatever", then it's no longer a tiny hit.

Comment Sound pretty stupid (Score 3, Interesting) 468 468

Normally you reserve good attire when there is client contact. Having formal attire for technician and engineer when there is no client contact is contra productive, you force people into a certain fashion which they might be uncomfortable with, for no good reason. That is a sure sign a hierarchy has lost sight of what is essential , and instead concentrate on rules which makes no sense , as to show they are doing "something". I expect no good future strategy from them from now onward.

Comment alternatively (Score 1) 169 169

Alternatively there has been dumb people publishing their attempt on twitter or whatnot. Now , a lone snipper or gunman or bomb maker, which do not publish what they will do beforehand, that would be something else. Especially with drone which can hold enough weight to have a gun or a bomb. Also remember , some people landed and there were drone on the white house zone. Which leads me to think, the secret service might not be that incredible either, but enough to catch the most dumb and less likely to reach their goal.

Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde