Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:This is frightening (Score 1) 82

I want all of my digital stuff to be destroyed when I die. I really don't want my family combing through all my personal shit when I'm dead.

Unless you take strong measures on your own, there's zero chance that any of your "digital stuff" will be destroyed when you die.

Your choices, if any really exist, are having your family comb through it, setting up a dead-man switch, or having a corporation use it for their own profit. Because once they're sure you're dead, the zaibatsus would sell your toes to foot fetishists if they could get away with it. Their sole purpose for existence is to maximize profit within the law. And some of them interpret that last bit to mean "anything I can get away with is effectively legal".

Comment: Re:Will they ban this ? (Score 1) 745

by Medievalist (#47703209) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

"They tied the hands of one woman to the back of a car and her legs to another car and they split her into two," he said beside makeshift tents as women cried

Would Fark ban the above news, from Reuters ?

If the article (which I did not read) explicitly approves or promotes the activity described in your quote, then yes.

If not, then no.

Usually it's easy to tell the difference between reporting an atrocity and cheerleading for the perpetrators. Usually.

Comment: Re:Failure of the 20th-Century Environmental Movem (Score 1) 249

by Medievalist (#47698675) Attached to: The Cost of Caring For Elderly Nuclear Plants Expected To Rise

If you actually do the research, nuclear makes pollution too. Lots of it. Only coal is really significantly worse (and coal is way worse).

And although solar panels are pretty dirty to manufacture (because most of them are made in China using electricity from coal plants under a lax environmental regime) their long service life makes up for it - you'll note that the brownwash jobs that the anti-solar people push out every month always significantly misstate service life and always use China's data, ignoring the clean European producers. Don't buy that meme, either! The real problem with solar's the same as with nuclear, it's simply not economically viable. (Although it might be in the future, if we end up subsidizing solar R & D the way we've subsidized the oil industry over the last 100 years).

Take a look at the real data instead of the memes. Only socialist and totalitarian states can have terrestrial nuclear fission plants, for exactly the reason you gave - in essence, you have to force people to pay costs they don't want in order to provide fission plants they don't need.

Your point about externalizing costs is certainly valid, though. Everybody's misrepresenting the true costs of all forms of power production at this point!

Comment: Re:Failure of the 20th-Century Environmental Movem (Score 0) 249

by Medievalist (#47698371) Attached to: The Cost of Caring For Elderly Nuclear Plants Expected To Rise

Ah, Rush Limbaugh's famous "Greenies made nuclear power unsafe" meme. A darling here on slashdot, despite so many annoying facts that tend to discredit it.

In the Real World ®, American Greens are the most ineffective political movement since the vegetarians. They have accomplished pretty much nothing since Nixon signed the Clean Air Act. The real actors are the majority of hard-headed average Americans (who are hardly "green", but who are sensible enough to know they don't want or need nuclear power) and the simple realities of market economics.

The cold hard truth is that no private entity has ever made an economically viable terrestrial nuclear fission power plant. Ever. Only socialist and totalitarian regimes can do it, because they can effectively ignore insurance costs, which the USA shouldn't (and although the Price-Andersen subsidies do exactly that, US plants still aren't cost-effective). In a truly free and fair market it would cost far more money for construction, insurance, and decommissioning than an operator could ever possibly recoup. Even the ultra-right wing Cato Institute admits this!

But terrestrial fission power plants are a masturbatory fantasy akin to Steampunkery, only with less whimsical charm. A fever dream of a world that never was, full of steam engines and glowing rocks. They are an obsolete and unnecessary technology fetishized by aficionados, who often seem to be quite willing to give up any form of representative government or free market if only they can have their beloved nuke plants. No tax burden is too high! Because it's not a reasoned argument for them, it's an obsession. So blaming the failings of their fellow travelers on their opposition fits their mindset perfectly - it couldn't possibly be the fault of the nuclear operators that they purposely built the cheapest, least safe designs allowed by law! It must have been those devil-greens! It's their fault!

Comment: Re: Here we go... (Score 1) 454

by Medievalist (#47510553) Attached to: MIT's Ted Postol Presents More Evidence On Iron Dome Failures

Where is your proof of so called "Terrorism" by the founders of Israel?

Um, it's pretty well documented by the British and at the UN, in their reports of the Stern Gang terrorism. Avram "Yair" Stern - who is pretty unequivocally one of the founders of modern Israel - blew up British military vehicles and bases, sabotaged rail lines, shot at trains, blew up a mine, destroyed international telegraph lines, attacked police stations, and robbed banks. His Lehi fanatics were completely unconcerned about civilian casualties (including any Jews who did not support them) and willing to ally with any military power that would send them weapons, including the Nazis.

This is all a matter of record and the state of Israel does not contest any of it; so why are you claiming otherwise?

The USA has terrorists among our founders, too. Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys come to mind... although I guess they weren't in the same league as Stern.

Comment: Re:Why is it always developers? (Score 2) 89

by Medievalist (#47510321) Attached to: Researchers Test Developer Biometrics To Predict Buggy Code

And what about managers who steer the development effort in a direction highly likely to produce buggy code, those won't get measured?

Of course they get measured. In the long term if they deliver too many screwed up projects, their superiors stop giving them projects.

Ultimately it is the developer's responsibility to push back against stupid managers and give them honest feedback about what can and cannot be done.

I would like to know where the entrance is located to this magically meritocratic land you speak of, It is obviously not Earth.

You'll need an invisible hand to turn the invisible doorknob.

Comment: Grow up. (Score 1) 184

by Medievalist (#47299277) Attached to: EFF To Unveil Open Wireless Router For Open Wireless Movement

Contracts entered into without alternative may be legally binding, but are generally held to be morally suspect.

If you have acted to prevent anyone from getting a fair deal, then I don't have to feel bad about acting to subvert your crooked deal without your knowledge.

And thus morality, ethics and legality splinter into a thousand pointy bits of subjectivity.

Personally, I play by the rules - but it's because I own property, and I don't want to give the corporate-owned mechanisms of state any excuse to confiscate any of it. It's not because I feel any moral obligation to the likes of Verizon or Comcast; the big ISPs appear to be pretty evil, judging from their past actions, and they've never earned any affection or respect from me.

Comment: Re:It's not about fear, it's about release of ange (Score 1) 493

by Medievalist (#47213053) Attached to: Mutant Registration vs. Vaccine Registration

I can accommodate a conscientious objector when he's honest and decent, but you seem to be merely a contrarian, and an apologist for people who are putting whole populations in danger of serious illness through smug stubbornness and willful ignorance.

See, that's where we differ, right there. You apparently think it is "honest and decent" to call people assholes, and to openly encourage intolerance towards people you consider smug and willfully ignorant. You can't conceive of an argument of conscience that results in disagreement with your viewpoint and dismissal of your ridiculously overstated fears ("whole populations in danger" hyperbole for example), so it must be contrarianism or apologism.

But how many people have you vaccinated, that are biologically unrelated to you? I'm betting none, although I'd actually love to be wrong.

Meanwhile, not only has my family adopted children and vaccinated them, I've contributed financially to vaccination campaigns in Afghan orphanages. So what's wrong with contrarianism again? Why do you consider it "decent" to engage in negative actions like spreading fear and inciting intolerance, while it's "apologism" to encourage bravery, social change, and ideological tolerance? Which in practice has resulted in positive action?

I think I can be proud to bear the title of "contrarian" in this particular debate, so I'll continue to refuse to play for either team, and continue to vaccinate, and continue to defend anti-vaxxer's right to make wrong choices.

But it doesn't sound like we're ever going to reach a meeting of minds. We're both too convinced of our own righteousness.

Comment: Eyes are tougher than they look. (Score 1) 190

by Medievalist (#47203627) Attached to: Study: Male Facial Development Evolved To Take Punches

You're underestimating the ability of the mammalian eye to withstand and recover from damage. Remember that LASIK surgery doesn't even bother with stitches, for example. And practically speaking the amount of force and accuracy required to drive a weapon or tool through an eye socket isn't much less than what's required to puncture the thinner parts of the skull.

I've been stabbed in the eye with a pencil, hard enough that it lodged in the socket behind the eye until I yanked it out, and had one of my eyes gouged far enough out that it was briefly laying on my upper cheek. Because of that I am at a higher than normal risk for glaucoma, but everything healed up fine years ago. Eyes are remarkably tough! The biggest danger to them is generally infection, not blunt trauma. Although if you actually pop one, they don't always refill without medical intervention, so do try to avoid that.

As for selection processes, remember how much of our brain appears to be optimized for facial recognition - even at birth - and consider how much being recognizable might improve one's chance of being sexually selected. :) That could provide some of the competing constraints you theorized.

Comment: Re:It's not about fear, it's about release of ange (Score 1) 493

by Medievalist (#47183497) Attached to: Mutant Registration vs. Vaccine Registration

you're interpreting that as people coming after you personally

Nobody's coming after me; I'm standing aside and watching the mob stream by with their pitchforks and torches.

My children are vaccinated. As am I! Although admittedly I did research each vaccine carefully, and in two cases required that a different preparation be used than the (cheaper) ones our pediatrician was selling. He's a good guy, and did as I asked.

Pretty much 100% of the time, if I say anything about not living in abject terror of disease, people's insistence on an Us .vs. Them dichotomy causes them to repeatedly ignore (as you apparently have) my pretty clear statements that I'm not part of "them". I think avoiding vaccination is both stupid and self-punishing.

But I guess it's hard to accommodate a conscientious objector like me, who has contempt for both sides, when you've got an emotionally fueled "with us or against us" meme running.

Comment: Re:Any new parent could tell you that. (Score 1) 85

by Medievalist (#47182949) Attached to: Lose Sleep, Fail To Form Memory

He wouldn't sleep unless we held him and walked in circles... all night. As soon as we stopped he would wake up and bite.

My daughter didn't sleep through the night until she was four. Walking in circles, jiggling gently... I got to the point where I could literally do it in my sleep. Otherwise I think I would have died. But at least she didn't bite!

One time we tried to let her "cry it out", which everyone kept telling us to do. But the neighbors started complaining after six hours of continuous all-out screaming... which they could hear, through their closed windows, in their brick house, from our brick house, with it's closed windows...

Comment: I guess I did agitate there. (Score 1) 493

by Medievalist (#47158637) Attached to: Mutant Registration vs. Vaccine Registration

Re-reading my earlier post, I see that I did say " If you want to attack someone, show some spirit, and attack the rich and powerful ".

Although I hope this was clearly rhetoric to my point, I guess in the most technical reading of the language I was inciting an attack on the powers that be, and should have more carefully worded my scoffing at the lack of courage of anti-anti-vaxxers.

Not that the rich and powerful have anything to worry about from you or me, of course. We're like bugs to them, they would barely care if I was inciting to riot.

Comment: Re:It's not about fear, it's about release of ange (Score 1) 493

by Medievalist (#47158367) Attached to: Mutant Registration vs. Vaccine Registration

Wait, maybe I'm a paranoid retard because I'm not living in a hysterical frenzy of fear over other people's stupid health decisions?

Yeah, that makes sense. Glad you were around to clear that up, I got other things to do today.

But are you sure you're not just looking in a mirror? I haven't proposed attacking rich people, I've just pointed out that the people who want to attack anti-vaxxers are pretty much all too chicken to agitate against any people who are actually a real significant threat to them. Anti-anti-vaxxers are mostly bullies and cowards, and it shows in how they bluster and name-call and belittle anyone who disagrees with their extremism.

If you really want to make a difference, you don't have to "attack rich people". Hey, you could start working on real world vaccination initiatives, rather than screaming at bumbling idiot anti-vaxxers. But that, of course, would be much harder than beating up on chumps, and less immediately emotionally satisfying. So I think most people will continue to vent their spleens on the anti-vaxxers, indulging their anger, instead of doing something more helpful.

It is surely a great calamity for a human being to have no obsessions. - Robert Bly

Working...