Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:It will be interesting to see how good these ch (Score 1) 340

by RoLi (#47289799) Attached to: Russia Wants To Replace US Computer Chips With Local Processors

The Soyuz had two loss of crew accidents in 120 flights. And ten more mission failures.

Shuttle had two loss of crew accidents in 135 flights. And no extra mission failures.

I fail to see the reliability advantage of the Soyuz.

The difference is that the Soyus does not have nearly as much launch delays as the Space Shuttle. The weather could delay a Space Shuttle start for months. That is also part of reliability - a launcher is worthless if you can't use it because the weather is not perfect.

Comment: Re:how long? (Score 3, Insightful) 103

by RoLi (#46917285) Attached to: ISS Studies Show Bacteria From Earth Could Colonize Mars

Forever, because terraforming Mars makes no sense.

Just think about it: Here on Earth, we put more and more plants under greenhouse because greenhouses are simply better for plant growth than the natural environment.

Any terraforming of Mars would not only take almost forever but would result in an Antarctica-like climate were you would still need greenhouses anyway. It just makes much more sense to skip the terraforming-part altogether and just use greenhouses without any terraforming.

Comment: Re:Vaccines (Score 1) 600

by RoLi (#46821393) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

So a vaccine that failed the test stops being a vaccine? That is news for me. Also we do not live in a static world - yesteryear's vaccine might be ineffective to today's viruses. Also what about vaccines that have been approved in some countries and rejected in others?

Also this does not distinguish between the "no-brainer" vaccines where the benefits clearly outweigh the risks and costs and the vaccines that are just barely beneficial.

So basically the question is completely wrong and should instead be: "Do you believe that the testing procedures of vaccines are safe and effective."

In that case I would also say that this is doubtful.

Comment: Re:Most slashdot readers deny genetics and sex sel (Score 1) 600

by RoLi (#46821221) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

Because we don't know how to measure intelligence accurately enough and control for all the other factors to narrow it down to just genetics.

That is a nonsense argument and you know it.

If the human body is influenced by evolution, then so is the human brain, simply because the brain is part of the body.

When you propose that for some reason all brains are functionally the same and are not influenced by genes, then the burden on proof is on you.

Comment: Re:Most slashdot readers deny genetics and sex sel (Score 1) 600

by RoLi (#46821199) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

How many can tolerate the obvious truth, supported by thousands of studies, that average differences in intelligence across the various peoples of the world and especially races are due to genetic factors?

Interesting question. The TV tells that evolution exists but race differences (especially in morality, behaviour and intelligence) don't exist. But evolution requires race differences - what now?

Also the TV admits that race differences exists for things that are too obvious to deny (like appearance, body size, blood pressure, testosterone levels, etc.) but deny any differences for things that may have been tested and confirmed countless times but are touching on the subject of what makes us human and what distinguishes us from animals (intelligence, behavior, morality, etc.). Essentially the TV claims that evolution works on the human body, but not on the human brain.

People who are raised by the TV (and there are a lot of those) actually believe these contradictions, it is what Orwell called "doublethink".

Comment: Re:Vaccines (Score 1) 600

by RoLi (#46821021) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

This "let's throw all vaccines into one giant pot and treat them as if they were the same thing" - opinion is the main reason why I am increasingly sceptic.

Just because SOME vaccines are safe and effective, how does this make them ALL safe? It is a fact of life that some diseases can be treated well with vaccines and some not at all.

The question about safety has to be answered for each vaccine individually (and also btw for each surgery).

To proclaim that "vaccines are safer than surgeries" - what complete and utter nonsense is that? What vaccine can cure a broken leg? What surgery can cure an infection?

Comment: About vaccines... (Score 1, Troll) 600

by RoLi (#46820977) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

"Only about half of the people accepted that vaccines are safe and effective, with 15 percent doubting."

Well that is kind of a loaded question, because every vaccine is different.

SOME vaccines are safe and effective, SOME are safe and not effective (i.e. a placebo, the drug companies most favorite kind of drug), SOME come with a greater risk than the disease itself.

To give the pharmaceutical industry a blank cheque by believing that ALL vaccines are safe and effective is just as stupid as proclaiming that "all drugs are safe and effective".

Every vaccine is different and the safeness and effectiveness is completely undefined for vaccines in general.

Comment: Re:LibreOffice (Score 1) 285

by RoLi (#46788045) Attached to: Apache OpenOffice Reaches 100 Million Downloads. Now What?

Wrong, both have their place:

OpenOffice is the more stable "enterprise-ready" version that won't change too much.

LibreOffice is the bleeding-edge version that incorporates new features (SVG-support, yay!) but sometimes also introduces new bugs. They also seem to think that users should update every couple of months.

And the best feature of them all:

You cannot easily install two versions of either OpenOffice or LibreOffice, you can however install OpenOffice along LibreOffice, so you can have the best of both worlds.

Comment: Re:shenanigans (Score 1) 386

by RoLi (#46732155) Attached to: UN Report Reveals Odds of Being Murdered Country By Country

I don't see why this fact should give rise to cries of racism, when it is just as much sexist and ageist.

This is because on TV-shows (doesn't matter if you watch CSI, Monk, Columbo or anything else), pretty close to 100% of the murderers are middle-aged, well-off, white males. (in rare instances it may also be a well-off white woman)

People who are raised by the TV are believing this as reality. They are looking at this day-in and day-out year after year - of course they will think it is racism when you contradict that.

Ernest asks Frank how long he has been working for the company. "Ever since they threatened to fire me."