Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Faith in God (Score 1) 299

by Zeromous (#47378827) Attached to: Site of 1976 "Atomic Man" Accident To Be Cleaned

This is absolute bullshittery. Morality is rational, it is irrational. It is codified, it is not codified. Wow, you are the weakest minded person I've met on the Internet all day- perhaps all week. Grow a pair and post as yourself too AC, if you want to talk about what morality actually is.

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Comment: Re:Faith in God (Score 2) 299

by Zeromous (#47376419) Attached to: Site of 1976 "Atomic Man" Accident To Be Cleaned

I think your definition of "morals" is skewed towards, my 'religious morals' versus any sort of accountable moral code which prevents people from impeding on others.

For instance, is it immoral for two men you don't know have sex? Is it also immoral for those one of those men to kill the other? Is it immoral for one of those men to marry his brother afterwards?

One of these things is morally ambiguous, one is immoral, and the other completely fucking irrelevant. But an unaccountable religious moral code would ban all three.

Social Networks

Employees Staying Away From Internal Corporate Social Networks 131

Posted by timothy
from the it's-so-uncrowded-nobody-goes-there. dept.
jfruh (300774) writes As social networks proliferated in the early '10s, so did the idea of a corporate social network — a Facebook-like community on an intranet where employees could interact. Unfortunately, corporate users are staying away in droves, perceiving the systems as one more in-box they'd have to take care of and getting their social-networking fix from Facebook and the like. From what I've seen of these internal networks, another good reason is that they're not as good as the full-time social networks are, and offer access only to a small universe of particpants anyhow. They're like a central-casting "rock band" in '80s movies — they come off as conspicuously aping the real thing.

Comment: Re:Transistors were not "discovered" (Score 1) 183

by Zeromous (#47306773) Attached to: How Vacuum Tubes, New Technology Might Save Moore's Law

Actually transistors were discovered then refined after experimenting with older technology.

>From November 17, 1947 to December 23, 1947, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain at AT&T's Bell Labs in the United States, performed experiments and observed that when two gold point contacts were applied to a crystal of germanium, a signal was produced with the output power greater than the input.[8] Solid State Physics Group leader William Shockley saw the potential in this, and over the next few months worked to greatly expand the knowledge of semiconductors. The term transistor was coined by John R. Pierce as a portmanteau of the term "transfer resistor".[9][10]

Comment: Re:SciFi come to life (Score 1) 270

So we should just charge to borrow books from the library?

The issue here is corporations use publicly built infrastructure (library) to sell us (books) and then they stock it full of Random House rather than Penguin books because they own Random House and Penguin books, while more popular, eat Random Houses' profit margins. The library forces the issue by stocking mostly Random House books, and as such you may get only Random House opinions as opposed to Penguin books. Penguin books becomes less popular because it is not as available, Random House wins and owns your Library.

So yeah, the Internet is a Miracle and selling it to the highest bidder is "fucking it up".

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody