Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:Ban Jargon? Seriously? (Score 1) 43

If you want to empower women, teach them how not to lose confidence when they look stupid. If looking stupid discourages you, software is no place to be.

Bam, face plant, truth!

The takeaway from all of the Women in STEM brouhaha is this. We are told that a woman will become completely discouraged if there is any negativity at all.

If I were femal I would be pissed at the "Women are not capable of handling problems" undercurrent. And many of the successful women I know indeed are.

Comment: Re:Funny Thing... (Score 1) 425

So, to each their own, but counting out WP just because "it's Microsoft" or "because WP7 sucked" is shortsighted at best.

I think the problem is that Microsoft has a reputation - and it was well earned - for being a device you bought into a whole batch of problems when you went with them.

The problem is that people remember their work microsoft computers, how they needed an army of IT people to keep them running. Phones aren't their work computer, but people remember.

So today, Microsoft starts out having to get past their rep.

So while it probably isn't fair - it is understandable.

Comment: Re:And the escalation continues (Score 1) 448

who decides proper manners? a century ago it probably wasn't "proper manners" for a woman to you know... speak. or wear pants. but that's off-topic.

i'm a bit more liberal than the average american, but i'm of the firm belief that all speech, all expression no matter how offensive should be protected from and by the law. It scares me that if i speak the wrong words, i might ruin my life,

Free speech has limits. Your free speech does not include the right to make terroristic threats. If you threaten to kill someone, then I have absolutely no idea any place where that would not be considered a threat to harm a person. Good manners or not, I recall early on, my parents told me "Never never ever threaten to kill someone." Must have made an impression on me, because I gave my son the exact same advice.

Which is all to say, if you threaten harm to a person, and harm comes to that person, guess who's going be knocking on your door to chat with you? Better have a good alabi.

that if i contribute to the wrong political philosophy or campaign, i could ruin my life.

That is certainly not in the mix here, that's way overstating what I've said. Normal discourse is speech. We can call each other names all day.

I could ruin my life with a single tweet.

Yes you could. You could threaten violence upon someone, disclose company or state secrets, admit infidelity or write something ridiculously stupid about your employer. On there and other services, people have bragged about or shown items they have stolen or about mistreating others. Yes, a stupid single tweet could be a life altering experience. And people have altered their lives.

Which by the way, is why I always strongly advise against using Twitter. The format simply encourages ill thought out texting and responses.

And the thing ruining my life is the judgmental, vicious and gleeful masses.

Or your wife, or employer, or Government as the case may be. Or you.

Regardless, that isn't even involved in what I'm talking about. I'm talking about matters that would get you in legal trouble if you said it in someone's presence. I don't know if you are married or not, but if someone threatened to kill you or whoever you loved, you would just not care or do anything about it? Or not do anything about it?

I cannot imagine anyone not having astrong visceral response to someone threatening non-consensual violent forced sex upon their daughter, and if you can say you'd meet with that person - well good for you. Perhaps not so good for your loved ones if the person threateing the violence carries through on the threat.

I like to think that i try to be excellent to others... but that in some very small part entails being excellent to those that are not excellent to me.

You and I have quite a different idea of what entails "not being excellent" I think. I love a good discussion with different ideas, even where people might call each other silly or stupid or petty, or ofter such comments.

But threats are indicative of a person losing control. And people losing control sometimes carry through on those threats.

Comment: Re:What they really proved... (Score 1) 132

by Ol Olsoc (#49189893) Attached to: NASA Ames Reproduces the Building Blocks of Life In Laboratory

What's your stance on whether "any/all" of the historical mainline models of physics regarding... anything... happened?

Oh, that's right, that was an irrational word construction that couldn't happen for anything in any topic.

Welcome back from the Iowa Freedom Summit, Mrs. Palin.

Comment: Re:What they really proved... (Score 1) 132

by Ol Olsoc (#49188627) Attached to: NASA Ames Reproduces the Building Blocks of Life In Laboratory

The experiment was discredited by numerous researchers for (a) being a tautology and (b) excluding data that argued against its conclusions that spontaneous generation of life is indicated.

Ah, the argument from personal incredulity. Okay, here we go. I simply cannot believe you

See how that works?

Comment: Re:What they really proved... (Score 1) 132

by Ol Olsoc (#49188609) Attached to: NASA Ames Reproduces the Building Blocks of Life In Laboratory

There in no basis for assuming that these conditions would ever occur. It's not statistics, it's wishful thinking. But thanks for pointing out the reason abiogenesists demand an incalculable (and unreproducible) time span of billions of years for their theories to work.

There is a whole lot better chance that those conditions could occur than any/all of the contradicting creation myths of every religion occurred, and you just so happened to be born into the one that is the real one, rather than all the wrong ones.

Don't you have some school board somewhere to infiltrate and force science students to learn creationism?

Comment: Re:Sorry, but... (Score 1) 132

by Ol Olsoc (#49188493) Attached to: NASA Ames Reproduces the Building Blocks of Life In Laboratory

Until we can define WHAT (precisely) "life" IS

Impossible. The division between life/lifeless is like the edge of a cloud. The closer you zoom in, the fuzzier it gets.

And how! By the definition of life back when I was in grade school, we've already created life. But as time moved on, we've refined that to the point that I expect we'll never define anything as human created life. Certainly the religious fundamentalists will never accept it.

Comment: Re:I just got one of these calls last night. (Score 1) 92

by Ol Olsoc (#49188393) Attached to: FTC Targets Group That Made Billions of Robocalls

Realistically, there are NO honest cold-call telemarketers. The law I would like to see passed is that there is a maximum $5 fine for beating the crap out of a telemarketer. And, make it a violation, not a misdemeanor.

Better yet, eliminate any penalty, and have people guilty of minor crimes beat the shit out of telemarketers as their community service.

Comment: Re: Have Settled Charges? (Score 2) 92

by Ol Olsoc (#49188337) Attached to: FTC Targets Group That Made Billions of Robocalls

I wound up agreeing to "parking on the sidewalk" which got me a $100 fine and wasn't reported to my insurance company. (My fine was higher than everyone else's and to this day I still wonder if it was because I questioned the validity of the ticket since the officer wrote down the wrong street that it happened on.)

No - its because you were parking on the damned sidewalk, ya bastard! Now straighten up and fly right.

Comment: Re: Have Settled Charges? (Score 1) 92

by Ol Olsoc (#49188315) Attached to: FTC Targets Group That Made Billions of Robocalls

However as is typical in these cases, while the settlement imposes a civil penalty of $7.73 million against CCL, it will be partially suspended after CCL pays only $500,000. Other companies involved such as Linked Service Solutions got a $5 million civil penalty but will only be required to pay $25,000.

Which is all to say, mere cost of doing business. I wonder is a 15 minute delay before starting up again was part of that "punishment"?

All the evidence concerning the universe has not yet been collected, so there's still hope.