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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:"Google feels that reeducation is necessary." (Score 2) 402

I'm actually curious to know why that was modded down. It's a point that many have made.

Because half of slashdotters lose their god damned minds as soon as the belief system that they put only shallow thought in proves to be completely irrational even at a shallow level.

Comment: Re:Heptatonic (Score 2) 104

by Rockoon (#49765521) Attached to: Favorite musical scale, by number of pitch classes?
Or it could just be that most of music formalisms are batshit insane...

Westerners break the octave up into 12 steps, each a 12th root away from the previous step. That should be a full stop, but no.... then they decide to pick subsets of that as special... not a single subset of course, but lots of subsets are labeled as special...

Its all a big pile of mistakes.. ancient mistakes...imagine if all programming languages were backward compatible derivatives of Fortran, Cobol, or Lisp.... thats the current state of music formalism...

Comment: Re:Undeserved?!? (Score 1) 292

by Rockoon (#49762785) Attached to: Study: Science Still Seen As a Male Profession

There is no "correct" gender. There are different genders, each with their own privileges.

..and each with their own tendencies.

The feminists would have you believe that men keep women down because they dominate politics/etc: The Patriarchy.

This is however quite a bit backward. Men do not dominate politics because they keep women down. Men dominate these things because men have always been the primary protectors and women the primary caregivers. Men build the defenses. Men go to war. The feminists institution present the cause and effect backwards, and they know it but would rather be dishonest. Greed.

1918 - Arver v. United States - The Supreme Court upheld that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience. Their reasoning was that men are given the right to vote so therefore they have a responsibility to defend society, and thus the draft in the united states was held as constitutional.

One year later, in 1919, women were given the right to vote but were not told that they too had such a responsibility as men had for their right to vote.

This has stood not because its right or fair, but because men and women really are different, that men are still primary protectors and women are still primary caregivers.

Fast forward to today, and Hillary Clinton gets away with claiming that the primary victims of war are women. That when a man dies on the battlefield it is his wife that is the primary victim. She gets away with this because the fact remains that men and women are different, so the two levels of victim-hood (death vs widow) are not directly comparable.

We need to cut federal funding for all feminist issues. Their bullshit has gone way past rationality.

Comment: Re:bye (Score 1) 529

by Rockoon (#49759537) Attached to: Ads Based On Browsing History Are Coming To All Firefox Users
Did you do what the people suggested which was NOT to update the drivers but instead to ROLL THEM (way the hell) BACK?

Clearly not, since you are going on about updates and claiming "that was fixed" (but then detail how it wasn't.)

Reading comprehension score, 1st test: 0
Reading comprehension score, 2nd test: 0

Comment: Re:Yes to Brexit (Score 2) 395

The problem we see in the EU is that it has become a bureaucratic, intransparent, undemocratic monster with a far too wide mandate.

Welcome to the machine. America is the same. Remember that we were a Union of States too, and then the Federal Government grew. Eventually the E.U. budget will be larger than all of its member States budgets combined, just like in America.

Comment: Re:Not much (Score 4, Interesting) 375

by Rockoon (#49747309) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

While I'm proud of my Senator (Wyden) and Paul for attempting to shine a spotlight on the "USA Freedom Act", they accomplished very little. A symbolic gesture for the Congressional records at most.

They accomplished: shine a spotlight on the "USA Freedom Act"

This has to do with knowledge.

Consider the case where I know that something is bad, and you know that something is bad, but neither of us know that the other also thinks its bad. In this case we are effectively loners even though we are not really alone.

Now the case where I know that something is bad, and you know that something is bad, and I know that you know that something is bad, and you know that I know that something is bad. In this case we are not loners by any measure.

You can't change things when you are a loner.

Comment: Re:It's not that great (Score 1) 413

by Rockoon (#49747257) Attached to: The Reason For Java's Staying Power: It's Easy To Read
Personally I like {}'s
Its the ;'s that I could do without.

I actually think VB got this one almost right, with linebreaks separating statements, but has both an operator (:) to separate statements within a line when thats advantageous, as well as an operator (_) to continue statements onto the next line when thats advantageous.

Its really easy to write a bunch of C-style code and miss a semicolon. Its really hard to write a bunch of VB code and miss a linebreak, or have an erroneous line continuation or line separator. One of these is obviously better overall.

Comment: Re:Wou would have thought. (Score 2) 50

by Rockoon (#49739385) Attached to: Martian Moons May Have Formed Like Earth's

In the case of small bodies (such as spacecraft) the atmosphere can substitute for the third body.

No, it can't.

You have found a way to lose enough energy for the object to remain in the system, but have not found a way to then add the energy necessary to put the object into a stable orbit (one that doesnt intersect your "solution" atmosphere.)

To be quite clear: If the orbit intersects the atmosphere this time around, and you dont add energy at some point immediately after that, then it will again intersect the atmosphere the next time around, and the time after that.... it will only take a few orbits until your "captured" object slams into the planet/moon that you claim is "capturing" it.

Comment: Re:Wou would have thought. (Score 1) 50

by Rockoon (#49736361) Attached to: Martian Moons May Have Formed Like Earth's

But why would one small object not simply leave the planet again?

There is no reason that doesnt defy physics for stable orbits to form in the manner suggested for "capture" of single bodies. A force other than gravity needs to be applied.

Not sure why it is so often suggested that "captures" work. They don't unless there is a 3rd body that can be given the energy difference. If this 3rd body then leaves the system then a stable orbit is possible for the "captured" object, but if it doesnt leave the system then its a 3 body problem where the initial conditions preclude the possibility of a stable orbit.

Comment: Re:In other news... (Score 2) 256

by Rockoon (#49733177) Attached to: Energy Dept. Wants Big Wind Energy Technology In All 50 US States

For a couple of hours after being washed with a detergent? No, it doesn't.

I know science is hard and all, so you might be surprised that detergent doesnt kill any molds.

Detergent is not a disinfectant.

Now explain to us why you are acting like an expert when both we and you know that you arent one? You don't get to claim that you mistakenly thought you were an expert... you knew you weren't...

Blessed be those who initiate lively discussions with the hopelessly mute, for they shall be known as Dentists.