Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Who watches this crap? (Score 1) 109 109

Watching somebody type is worthless.

Watching somebody's thought process as they write code is maybe helpful, maybe worthless.

Watching somebody code while they natter about random things could be entertaining, depending on how entertaining the coder is.

Watching somebody debug their code is by far the best way to learn advanced debugging techniques that I've ever seen. That goes way beyond facile examples.

I haven't watched any of these streams. I don't know what they do. But I can't discard it as idiocy without thinking it through.

Comment: Re:Very Disturbing Trend (Score 1) 1080 1080

I believe that homosexuality is a behavior that is learned and changeable, instead of inborn.

Setting aside whether this is true, why does this matter? How does it have the least bit of relevance?

Something that is without a doubt best for children are a mom and a dad.

Plenty of reason to doubt this. For instance, "child abuse".

But aside from that, what relevance is that? Do you think that banning gay marriage will cause a child to live in two-parent male/female households? I suspect that, absent another rule that is completely separate from gay marriage, you'll get exactly as many pairs of gay parents whether or not they are married.

If you don't think this makes a difference look at all the statistics - from physical, physiological and mental health and including the heightened probabilities of drug use, suicide, school drop out rates, wedlock births and crime - if you just take the father out of the equation

Do you have any statistics that compare to female parents to a male and female parent? Because comparing a male and female parent, to a single female parent, is not isolating sexual diversity as what improves parenting. The number of parents is clearly relevant.

wedlock births are opposed to wedlock births????

Having two women trying to raise a child mimics correctly the absence of a father

No. Come on. That's obviously BS. It's pretty obvious why two parents would be better than one.

So I decided to look up the statistics on this, since you mentioned that they existed, and what I found completely contradicts you. It shows that *only* the number of parents really matter, and their gender is irrelevant:

It may even be that three live-in parents are better than two, but it's much harder to find statistics on that.

If this is really your reasoning, you should push for laws that remove children from single-parent and same-sex-parent households, and redistribute them in mixed-sex households (perhaps some polyamorous households, maybe some non-romantically-involved roommates?). Gay marriage doesn't matter to you, it's single-sex parenting, and you don't really help that by opposing gay marriage.

Comment: Re:GMOs have so many different problems (Score 1) 187 187

Then ask the people who sell non-GMO products to label themselves non-GMO.

The whole label law controversy was about forcing GMO products to label themselves GMO. But that's totally backwards! Even for the people who want to avoid GMO! Because you don't want to have to look for the absence of a label, you want to look for a label, because things are easier to find than unthings.

If they don't label they must not consider it to be important, OR, they aren't confident that they aren't GMO, one or the other. Tell them you think it's important.

Comment: Re:GMOs have so many different problems (Score 1) 187 187

Look, I agree with you on GMO food, but the answer to your question is blindingly obvious.

We are on a website that literally prompts people to discuss subjects. The subject this time is GMO food.

What I'm more curious about is what prompted you to talk about organic foods. At time of writing, you are the only result in ctrl+f for organic on this page.

Comment: Re:Wasted effort? (Score 3, Interesting) 136 136

That's an interesting point, but it's not necessarily true. We can take bigger risks on a dead world, or even perform actions that poison in one way and improve it in another, and worry about cleaning up the poisoning later. The current world must not go through an intermediate "dead world" state.

The risks can even help us prove concepts for the earth.

Also, the timescale for terraforming Mars is surely much longer than the timescale for improving Earth. It's an interesting idea at least.

Comment: Re:Economic suicide (Score 1) 308 308

Do you leftists have a death wish?


You can't control climate.

We aren't talking about controlling climate. We are talking about arresting a sudden impetus for rapid climate change.

There is no viable substitute for petroleum.

Then we are doomed because petroleum is not limitless. The cost will creep ever further from the average person's reach, then even from the rich's reach.

Unless we can manufacture more petroleum. The only way to do that, is with an energy source greater than the energy of the petroleum we're making...

(even other fossils can replace petroleum)

Get over it.

No. I'm not going to submit to a life of misery.

Nuclear power + renewables can relatively easily replace petroleum in just about everything except our flying machines (helicopters, airplanes, space launch vehicles) and emergency backup generators. Improved battery technology can help replace backup generators.

Comment: Re:If it doesn't include nuclear... (Score 4, Interesting) 308 308

Doesn't really talk about nuclear in any way. You can read between the lines a bit, though.

It talks about mandating clean energy by 2050. Clean energy is not strictly defined -- by most standards I've seen, nuclear is clean because it doesn't have significant carbon emissions. And there's a lot about capping carbon emissions.

Other parts of the document talk about increasing renewable energy use, which is not nuclear but doesn't contradict nuclear also being used.

Parts of the document talk about ending all subsidies for fossil fuels. Nuclear is definitely not a fossil fuel.

The same guy has been on the record in the past (2009) as pro-nuclear, but I didn't find any more recent statements (other than Iran):

Comment: Re:Scare quotes? (Score 1) 141 141

Either you're confused or I am.

Snowden exposed that things were being used for tracking purposes. So why put scare quotes around tracking purposes? It's the exact nefarious thing you're talking about. They are advertising the purpose.

What is the NSA going to do with fingerprints that's worse than the advertised tracking purposes? Sorcery?

If you're going to think it's a government conspiracy, the scare quotes belong around a statement that the tracking will be limited. You say it like this: the tracking will be "limited to legitimate educational concerns" (note: I just made that up). That's where the scare quotes go.

Any programming language is at its best before it is implemented and used.