Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The answer is, "Republiucans and Democrats" (Score 1) 16

You're just in denial of your own self

Well, Judge, tell me what that is, then, as I've already stated it, only to find I've fallen short of your glory. I stand astonied at your willingness to assert wisdom, open your mouth, and emit what sure sounds a river of foolishness.

Comment Re:Safety (Score 1) 395

A firearm is quite clearly a tool. It can also be used as a weapon - as can most anything, up to and including using your attached limbs. I use my firearms as a tool that enables me to throw small bits of metal at accuracies, distances, and speeds unable to be easily matched by other means in a similar format.

A firearm is a tool in the same sense as heroin is a tool: no reasonable person would ever describe them in such terms unless they were trying to set up some particularly transparent bullshit fence.

All in all, it's a pretty damned well designed too for a very specific task - throwing bits of metal to quite a distance, accurately, quickly, and with decent reliability.

And the reason this is useful is that those fast-moving bits of metal project deadly force over distance. In other words, it's a well-designed weapon.

Comment Re:Safety (Score 1) 395

No one wants to actually really solve the problem. They just want to mindlessly apply the bag of tricks associated with their agenda whether they will work or not.

I very much doubt that that's true. It would require most people to be actively dishonest, after all. No, what's happening is that the gridlock makes it impossible to push any agenda in a moderate, considered and conditional way, so when the opportunity comes - when there's a crisis of some sort - people use it to force things through. It's like locked continental plates violently shifting in an earthquake instead of constantly and gradually.

Comment Dilbert? (Score 1) 221

I didn't realize the show was supposed to be about geeks. I thought it was ironically portraying the disconnect between the academic pursuit of science and things that happen in the real world.

I've never seen it.

I take it they intended to do "Dilbert in hard-science academia" but were about as effective as liberal artists usually are when they try to portray anything on the physics or engineering side of the fence?

Comment Re:The movie was good because the book was short. (Score 1) 209

I'm sorry, I missed out where "accuracy" and "popularity" became interchangeable terms. I was responding to a post talking about the book's amazing scientific accuracy, when in reality it's a veritable MST3K of glaring science errors on almost every page. Or at least glaring to anyone who knows anything about the scientific fields involved.

At least with "soft" sci-fi where they don't try to explain how everything works you only get hit over the head with science problems whenever they describe a situation that's literally impossible. With bad pseudo-hard-sci-fi you get hit over the head with it again and again.

Brain off-line, please wait.