Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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:Ok then... (Score 3, Insightful) 229

by Xyrus (#49196669) Attached to: How Activists Tried To Destroy GPS With Axes

What i'm wondering most, you start off by calling them crazy, but are they?

For starters, if we get into a war with the machines, we're going to need heavier firepower than an ax...

For starters, to even get to a stage where we would even possibly be at war with machines would imply that we don't destroy ourselves before reaching that level of technological advancement. It is far more likely that we destroy our civilization within the next century through a mixture of extremism, resource wars, and general human stupidity than developing some sort of AI that will wipe us out.

The guy in the article is crazy. Technology is not the problem. People are, and you're not going to convince people to support your cause by doing pointless/crazy things like hacking up satellites with an ax.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 491

by Xyrus (#49188943) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

The language of the bill is very clear. It is intended to do what it says: make sure our regulatory bodies (employees of The People) are making their decisions based on publicly available, sound science.

The language is clear. I agree. But that isn't what it says.

Read all congressional measures as if you were lawful/evil. You'll find that more than a few of measures like this one do not say what you think it says. In this case, this seemingly innocuous and even beneficial measure becomes an extremely powerful tool for effectively neutering the EPA.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 2) 491

by Xyrus (#49188841) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

So what you're saying is that "Due Process" is inconvenient?

The EPA should be subject to due process. If they're saying they're doing something because of a study... then that study itself should be subject to examination... that includes whether it is reprroducable and therefore science at all... and then you're going to want to know where the information came from so you can audit it...

No. He's saying that it's impossible to review PUBLICLY what is held PRIVATELY. "Trade Secrets" is the corporate equivalent of "National Security". In addition, corporate snow-jobbing of the public has been going on for decades, and is already quite effective at stalling actions. Remember leaded gasoline? Asbestos? Acid rain? The measures here make it even easier to use those same tactics to effectively neuter or stop regulation entirely.

You can't take crap like this at face value. You have to read it like a politician. This has nothing to do scientific veracity, and everything to do with how to neuter the EPA so that corporate whores like Inhofe can line their pockets with more "free speech" while trashing our environment.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 491

by Xyrus (#49188679) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

No.. The EPA would propose a regulation and during the required comment period, people could examine the science and the data used and attempt to reproduce it. If they find fault during the regulation process (the EPA cannot just declare regulation, it has to propose it, wait for a comment period, address any concerns brought up, comment, then vote to pass it). But anyone can reproduce the science if it is sound...

You reading it how a normal person would read it. From a normal person's perspective, it sounds like it's common sense. Read it like a politician or a lawyer. From that perspective, there's loopholes here you could drive a planet through. In fact, the loosest interpretation would pretty much guarantee that the EPA could never pass any regulations ever again which is exactly what people like "I gotsa snowball" Inhofe and his corporate sponsors want.

Comment: Re:Uh ...wat? (Score 4, Insightful) 456

by Xyrus (#49180585) Attached to: Former MLB Pitcher Doxes Internet Trolls, Delivers Real-World Consequences

But while I have little sympathy for these dickheads, and I completely understand his motivation, I don't like this eye-for-an-eye response.

Easy to say when it isn't your daughter receiving death/rape threats. I don't know of a single parent who wouldn't do this (and more) if their children are threatened.

There is no proportionality when something like this goes viral.

Then the assholes shouldn't have said anything in the first place. We're not talking about a couple of screwed up kids thinking that they're funny. The people doing this were adults. There is no fucking excuse for this.


Should these guys have their lives ruined over this?

Actions have consequences. I don't know why people can't get this through their heads. The same freedom that allows you to post rape treats is the same freedom someone can use to hunt you down and expose you.

If someone came onto your lawn and started yelling about how they were going to rape your daughter, they're not going to get a little slap on the wrist. They'd get arrested, thrown in jail, and possibly be put on a sex offender list.


Should they be subjected to the same bullying magnified through the lens of a million internet users out for "justice"? I think not.

Tough. Shit. They should have thought about that before publicly posting rape threats.

If one of these idiots kills himself over the response Curt will have effectively sentenced him to death. We shouldn't be comfortable with that outcome as a society.

No, he wouldn't. He's not responsible for what people do with the information. He's letting people know that there as some twisted fucks in their midst. That's a public service. I'm pretty sure most parents don't want to be associated with (or have their kids associated with) someone who thinks it's funny to make brutal rape threats.

Actions have consequences. If you can't handle the consequences or potential consequences of your actions, THEN DON'T FUCKING DO THEM. The fact that these assholes/idiots didn't stop to think about all the ways this could come back and bite them on the ass is no excuse. We may be a society laws, but we are also a society of humans.

Comment: Re:fees (Score 0) 389

by Xyrus (#49153811) Attached to: Verizon Posts Message In Morse Code To Mock FCC's Net Neutrality Ruling

fuck capitalism.

It has nothing to do with capitalism. It has everything to do with unregulated corporate greed...

Capitalism is unregulated corporate greed and all too often it has demonstrated just how ugly human nature can be. Why do you think we have labor laws, health regulations, etc. in the first place? Because corporations gave not a single fuck about people. If they can higher immigrant workers at 10 cents an hour for 16 hours a day to work in unhealthy and dangerous conditions, they will do it. And they have done it. If they can hire their own personal army and intimidate/remove "problems", then they'll do it. And they have done it. If they can buy politicians to further improve their bottom line while crushing competition, they'll do it. And they have done it. If it is profitable to operate chemical plants in 3rd world countries that are basically ecological disasters waiting to happen because any fines would be a slap on the wrist compared to the profits they make exploiting that country, then they'll do it. And they have done it.

Capitalism is not altruistic. Capitalism is not about improving the human condition. Capitalism is about profit. Profit at any cost. If people die, so what. They still made their money. If they have to pay a million dollar fine, who cares? They made $10 million having workers slave away in an asbestos filled factory.

Comment: Re:Interesing... (Score 1) 394

by Xyrus (#49139483) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

SO, they're only investigating the funding sources of people who disagree with their position.

Well, that couldn't be biased at all, now could it?

I guess your bias prevents you from reading. Documenting funding source for research is STANDARD PRACTICE. Hiding those sources and then LYING TO CONGRESS ABOUT IT has a tendency to viewed unfavorably.

Comment: Re:We already have them (kinda) (Score 1) 318

The Phalanx system on US navy ships is, once activated, pretty much automatic. Anything within it's radar envelope automatically gets a dose of 20mm cannon fire. It's designed to take down anti-ship missiles, but will engage pretty much anything moving towards the boat that it's radar can pick up.

And if you happen to be the target, you are going to have a bad time.

Comment: Re:Reduced carbon storage (Score 1) 421

by Xyrus (#49115451) Attached to: What If We Lost the Sky?

This reminds me of Major Payne.

Marine Private: AHHHH my arm, my arm!
Major Payne: Want me to show you a little trick to take your mind off that arm?
[Marine nods and Payne grabs the private's pinky finger]
Major Payne: Now you might feel a little pressure.
[Major Payne breaks the Marine's pinky]
Marine Private: AUGGGGH! My finger, my finger!
Major Payne: Works every time.


Comment: Re:Right... what could go wrong? (Score 1) 421

by Xyrus (#49115423) Attached to: What If We Lost the Sky?

Seriously. We have a perfect understanding of the climate. We can predict to a tenth of a degree what the weather will be two weeks or two hundred years from now anywhere on Earth.

Weather and climate are not the same thing, and opening your idiotic diatribe with such a statement demonstrates you have very little understanding of basic math, physics, and chemistry. Global warming was predicted well over 100 years ago by Svante Arrhenius (considered the father of modern chemistry). He was the first to synthesize the work of Fourier and others from the early 1800's to produce physical model demonstrating how much impact increasing green house gases would have on average planetary temperature.

So almost 200 years of physics and chemistry, vs. one random internet poster who comes right out of the gate equating climate and weather. Who has more evidence supporting their argument?

Comment: Re:And... the evidence? (Score 2) 448

by Xyrus (#49107971) Attached to: How One Climate-Change Skeptic Has Profited From Corporate Interests

And his evidence? What about the evidence? What does him accepting money have to do with his results?

Did he fake his evidence, or fudge the calculations?

Science is all about the observations and the predictive conclusions. It shouldn't matter if he was funded by the devil himself - if science can't refute his observations and conclusions, then it's the science that must be revisited.

His papers in regards to climate have been thoroughly destroyed. A quick Google search will yield plenty of information on the topic. Just avoid the science denial sites.

Comment: Re:Need to consider this (Score 1) 183

by Xyrus (#49082971) Attached to: Theory of Information Could Resolve One of the Great Paradoxes of Cosmology

What if the universe is 120 times larger? Maybe our part of the observable universe just looks like it happened from a Big Bang.

For all we know our universe is just the latest in a string of "detonations" due to a locus of instability in the omniverse, Think of it like ripples in water caused by a drop falling into it. Each drop (the "bang") creates a universe and the resulting "wave" pushes the preceding bangs outward, causing expansion. Simultaneously all other bangs are hidden by the peaks of the wave since they all reside in the troughs.

The waves in this case would represent a multi-dimensional "buckling" as result of the explosions, creating what amounts to an infinite potential well between each one. From down in the "troughs", you can't see anything beyond your bounded but infinite space. And that space would appear to be expanding due to the unseen force of new bangs pushing yours outwards.

Now if there's some sort of aether/friction/resistance/etc. in this omniverse then it may be possible, after a long enough period of time, for the amplitude of the waves to diminish allowing observation, or even "crashing" into previous bangs.

Basically you can come up with just about any crazy idea you want once you start pushing the boundaries of the observable universe. However, coming up with something that can be validated scientifically is another matter.

Don't be irreplaceable, if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.