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:Attack the messenger... (Score 1) 373

by Rockoon (#49139741) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

If his papers are fine then why did he not disclose his funding source?

Prove that he didnt. Currently, all there are are claims that he didn't under the premise that sometimes he is funded by X but in some papers he doesnt say that he is funded by X.

25 years ago I collected unemployment or a few months, which is why I am now disclosing that this post was funded by unemployment insurance. Also, its funded by the lottery administration because once I had a $4 winner. Not to omit anything, my current employer is also funding this post, and lets not forget that my friend paid for dinner the other night.

Sure, none of that actually funded this post, but then apparently you dont have to prove that they did in order to damn me.

Comment: Re:I hope so (Score 1) 252

by Rockoon (#49101443) Attached to: No Tech Bubble Here, Says CNN: "This Time It's Different."

You and your imaginary broker that allows you to do short selling without a fat margin

Are you imagining that we are claiming to sell short with an empty wallet?

When you wallet is empty, you cannot buy either.

perhaps the reason you cannot imagine regular folks selling short is that you are an idiot that doesnt know how to sell short? yeah... all your posts indicate this. All your posts indicate that you know extremely little about anything market related, least of all how people short stocks.

Comment: Re:Reality Flip Switch (Score 2) 252

by Rockoon (#49100465) Attached to: No Tech Bubble Here, Says CNN: "This Time It's Different."
oh noes!! deflation! stuff will get cheaper and thats terrible!!

All the opponents of deflation cite cases where there was a economic catastrophe that resulted in deflation, where they then spin it to blame all the bad things that happened on the deflation rather than the catastrophe.

Lower prices isnt bad. Period.

Comment: Re:IRS + medical (Score 1) 210

by Rockoon (#49097911) Attached to: 800,000 Using Were Sent Incorrect Tax Data

Yup, there's that too. Still, however, if you get your health insurance without any subsidy, the IRS only need to know that you have it.

Why didnt you address the part in his post which refutes what you are now saying? Seems like you large amount of intellectual dishonesty on your part. (why so dishonest? is it that you are uninformed and don't realize just how dishonest you are being?) You have to have the right kind of health insurance. Many people had plans much more responsible than so called qualified plans, that dont qualify.

When I was growing up the plans were called Major Medical, and later on they were re-tokened High Deductible. They are cheaper and cover more of the things that insurance is for, which is preventing a financial catastrophe. They exclude the middle man from routine expenses like yearly physicals and teeth cleanings, making those activities cheaper as well.

But no... you want to dishonestly defend the ACA like its a good thing when clearly a good thing would encourage Major Medical, rather than declare it unqualified.

Comment: Re:News (Score 1) 210

by Rockoon (#49097851) Attached to: 800,000 Using Were Sent Incorrect Tax Data

thats it, would have cost next to nothing to the people, and would accomplish the only good thing that obamacare has going for it.

..and is something many States already had a law for. It is unbelievable how many people point to the pre-existing conditions rule completely unaware that they were already living under such a law. It just goes to show that uninformed idiots are deciding things, and then defending those things, while commiting logical fallacies all the way through.

Comment: Re:Net Neutrality (Score 1) 112

by Rockoon (#49093455) Attached to: AT&T Patents System To "Fast-Lane" File-Sharing Traffic

How does this violate Net Neutrality exactly?

The ISP discriminates against sources not on its network. Not sure why you dont understand that this as a violation of net neutrality... perhaps because you want faster torrents...

Peering arrangements are focused largely on improving performance, similar to what this patent describes.

The patent doesnt describe a peering arrangement.

Saying this violates Net Neutrality opens to the door to scrutinize pretty much the backbone of how the internet functions today.

Well, thats exactly what net neutrality does. It opens the door, and you have been told already that it does. Bureaucrats will be deciding these things now. Thanks for letting this happen.

Comment: Re:Cause meet Effect. (Score 2) 47

by Rockoon (#49073771) Attached to: When Chess Players Blunder

A really superior chess engine might get 0.1 points advantage in every pair of moves, and after 30 moves you haven't got a chance. But we are talking here about blunders with 2.0 points disadvantage in one move.

I've spent years following the TCEC and watching Crafty get demolished again and again and again, and its never via the slow 0.1 grind that you are imagining. You are talking out your ass right now.

Crafty regularly (*almost every game*) makes blunders giving what the top engines see as +3 pawns and higher advantage. It then often takes crafty several more moves to finally see that its lost, and then it regularly mis-evaluates that as even worse than it really is (because its failure to see goes both ways.)

Comment: Re:Cause meet Effect. (Score 2) 47

by Rockoon (#49072665) Attached to: When Chess Players Blunder

I think the big problem is that a "mistake" is being defined so crudely.

..especially since he is using a horrible chess engine to decide what a mistake is.

Crafty, the engine he used is rated 2825
Stockfish, (arguably) the best engine available (and its open source) is rated 3390

..for a difference if 3390 - 2825 = 565

So by his own research numbers the engine he used for his blunder analysis blunders about twice as often as the free Stockfish which he could have used.

...garbage in, garbage out.

No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.