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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment NASA lies; how can one ever trust a liar again? (Score -1, Troll) 41 41

2.3 trillion dollars can buy a lot of Hollywood fakery. That's the amount that Rumsfeld announced was missing the day before a "plane" destroyed the financial section of the Pentagon.

Why have all the governments of the world sealed off Antarctica and space from us? It started in the late 50s when Admiral Byrd found something in Antarctica, and all countries pulled their forces out and signed a "keep out" treaty which isn't negotiable until 2040.

The ISS is in a pool somewhere on Earth, you can tell when you see the bubbles rising from their helmets during a "spacewalk" when they bump something (it's difficult to get all the air bubbles out). It's similar to the pools you see them train in, except this one is done up to look "real". Look for the guy wearing scuba tanks and flippers swimming inside the open hatch. That's not regulation space attire! Also the hairspray so you don't see the women's hair being jerked around by the turbulence (they use the "vomit comet" planes which have been made up to look like the ISS, which is why no part of it is wider than an airplane cabin) -- they got enough feedback that it was ridiculous and she cut her hair short (in zero-G? There must have been hair everywhere!).

The truth is being revealed. Some of us will see it sooner than others. Please, look into it yourself -- "Flat Earth Clues" by Mark Sargent is well-produced, concise, and informative. Then go out and replicate some of the experiments; I've seen a city across the water when it should have been "below the curvature" and I've also tested that moonlight makes things colder, not warmer (the key there is if it's reflected sunlight, then it should still make things warmer -- perhaps not as much as the direct sun does -- but instead, it's warmer in the shadows of the moonlight!).

NASA was founded by Nazis brought over in Operation Paperclip, and the astronauts who "walked on the moon" were all Masons, who take a blood oath (Luciferian) which they say supersedes all other oaths (which makes sense, if they've really sold their souls), and who are members of a secret society meaning they keep secrets among themselves, which means they spread lies outside their group. Don't trust them, or governments. Trust your senses.

Comment The ISS is in a pool, not in space! (Score 0) 16 16

Both the US space agency and the Chinese space agency have these troubling issues with their "space" footage: bubbles are seen escaping from the suits! This is evidence that the footage is being taken underwater, rather than in space. In fact, in one of the US space agency's "space walk" videos, a person wearing scuba equipment can be see hiding out in the hatch!

NASA lies. Once you know you're dealing with a liar, everything else they say is suspect.

Comment NASA lied about moon missions; what else? (Score 0) 30 30

Recent NASA info says we can't get past the Van Allen belts -- the radiation will fry a person.

So, how did the Apollo 11 astronauts get through? Answer: they didn't.

Stanley Kubrick was hired to fake it. Then he was murdered 3 days after revealing this in an interview (just before "Eyes Wide Shut" came out, which he contractually forced it to come out on the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11).

See the hints in the Shining: "A11 work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."

Note carefully that the typewriter did not show "All" -- it's "A11", as in "Apollo 11".

I don't trust Masons. They take a blood oath saying all previous and future oaths are subservient to this (Masonic) oath. Every single Apollo astronaut was a Mason.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 0) 594 594

Agree 100%.

The definition of "conspiracy" is: two or more people hiding their actions from one or more other people. (Like: surprise party; or, the mafia.)

Thus, if the government "classifies" something, it is a conspiracy by definition! They (one or more people) are hiding their actions from the public (one or more people).

So it's no stretch to say government conspires. Does government classify? Yes. Thus, government conspires.

Shark

Finally, a Shark With a Laser Attached To Its Head 139 139

Freshly Exhumed writes in with a Wired story about a nerd/super-villian dream come true. "Marine biologist-cum-TV personality Luke Tipple attached a 50-milliwatt green laser to a lemon shark off the coast of the Bahamas in late April. The escapade was sponsored by Wicked Lasers, a consumer-focused laser manufacturer based in Hong Kong that produces some of the most brilliant — and potentially dangerous — handheld lasers in the world. 'This was definitely a world first,' Tipple told Wired. 'Initially, I told them no. I thought it was a frivolous stunt. But then I considered that it would give us an opportunity to test our clips and attachments, and whatever is attached to that clip, I really don't care. It was a low-powered laser that couldn't be dangerous to anyone, and there's actually useful applications in having a laser attached to the animal.'"

Comment Re:It's not Entrapment. (Score 1) 573 573

Nope this is just another case of something the government is damned good at, and that is the appearance of doing SOMETHING even if that something actually is as useless as moving a rock from the left side of a field only to move it back to the right the next day.

Actually that would be good for some exercise. What the FBI is doing here seems like it would be better left not done.

Comment Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score 1) 149 149

You know, I'm no fun of poor public decision-making but honestly turning off the data in underground public transportation seriously does not seem like that big of a deal to me.

I'm sorry, I just don't see what possible "event" could warrant making the populace unable to communicate with each other, unless said "event" was created by the people who are turning off communications.

Comment Re:Of course. (Score 1) 1174 1174

Way to be purposefully obtuse.

Uh, no, it was "way to be challenged on the spot". I really wanted to be on that jury, actually, not because of the issue but because I am interested in learning our civic processes. (I'm also slightly afflicted with Asperger's so do not always function correctly, socially.) And, no, I didn't think, when I was on-the-spot, that the question was related to evidence-less claims, I took the question at face value and attempted to answer it as best I could. Next time I will ask for clarification.

Oracle

Oracle and the End of Programming As We Know It 577 577

An anonymous reader writes "An article at Dr. Dobb's looks into the consequences of a dangerous idea from Oracle during their legal battle with Google: 'that Google had violated Oracle's Java copyrights by reimplementing Java APIs in Android.' The issue is very much unsettled in the courts, but the judge in this case instructed the jury to assume the APIs were copyrightable. 'In a nutshell, if the jury sides with Oracle that the copyrights in the headers of every file of the Java source base apply specifically to the syntax of the APIs, then Oracle can extract payment and penalties from Google for having implemented those APIs without Oracle's blessing (or, in more specific terms, without a license). Should this come to pass, numerous products will suddenly find themselves on an uncertain legal standing in which the previously benign but now newly empowered copyright holders might assert punitive copyright claims. Chief among these would be any re-implementation of an existing language. So, Jython, IronPython, and PyPy for Python; JRuby, IronRuby, and Rubinius for Ruby; Mono for C# and VB; possibly C++ for C, GCC for C and C++ and Objective-C; and so forth. And of course, all the various browsers that use JavaScript might owe royalties to the acquirers of Netscape's intellectual property.'"

Comment Re:Of course. (Score 1) 1174 1174

They've always removed me from the jury pool, by asking a question designed to show whether I was intelligent or not. Last time it was, "How believable is a police officer compared to a member of the public?" My response included that the officer had training in observation and recollection, so would likely be a slightly better recording device than a common human, so perhaps 55%, or 60%, instead of 50/50? The judge said, and I quote, "Next."

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990

Working...