Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Doctor Biboulet certified it (Score 1) 376

The charlatan aforementioned certified it was oversensitiveness. Unfortunately the way the appeal works in this case , it was not a real tribunal but an instance where it was looked at the recourse of the woman to be declared handicapped. There is such a case no second expertise. So a doctor probably not even a psychologist or psychiatry, not aware of the research showing electrosensitivity is pure hypochondria, was bamboozled and certified her ill, so she get social allocation for 3 years. After that it get reevaluated. Sad but not surprising.

Comment Doubleclick serve malware (Score 3, Insightful) 220

Doubleclick isn't exactly your eastern europe shaddy site : http://www.theverge.com/2014/9...

You are probably not responsible and involved, and thank you for the informative post, I am sorry but your "we are vetting ad" in view of big network serving malware, sounds more like trying to stem the flow of the blood while pretending one is not wounded.

"The only real market solution is to whitelist a certain number of ad networks"
No the real only solution is to blacklist *all* ad network until they accept responsibility and utterly disable any scripting in their advertising, only serving sanitized text and sanitized image. And that is the minimum.

Comment mob rule does not make right (Score 1) 1027

"The majority of those people who signed up voted and Ancillary Justice won one of the awards. "

Majority from a self selected group is far from being an indication of excellence. But if you think so, then If you expand and read around you will see that the popular estimate is far more mixed for ancillary justice. Do not take me wrong, it is a good novel, but it is a novel conservative in its execution, and as such it does not reflect excellence and innovation. If you had told me it was a novel from a white old guy back in the 70ies I would have nodded : that is how conservative it feel in its execution (note : literary execution and plot, I am not using conservative in a political sense). Maybe it was the best they could find that year though I did not look that up. But then again they could simply have voted "no award". Read around i am not the only one to think so, the critics about its execution, I am not the only one thinking that, and web site where you can see collated critic and fan vote certainly show a wide split. A good novel, but not one of excellence.

Comment From the hugoaward web site (Score 0) 1027

"The Hugo Awards, to give them their full title, are awards for excellence in the field of science fiction and fantasy. They were first awarded in 1953, and have been awarded every year since 1955. The awards are run by and voted on by fans."

It award excellence it says nothing else. If those women/minorities/LGBT novel shine by excellence then the sad puppies are idiot puppies. If on the other hand those novel do NOT shine by excellence then there is a suspicion they are nominated for other reason, being promotion of author for other reason. In such case then the puppies are correct as this should be excellence which should be promoted. Not political stuff.

I have no idea whichever way the true reality is I can only give my own take : I can only say the 2014 award did not please me , anciliary justice for example, I found it more old school and not really "excellent" (so the critic of not conservative enough is funny from my POV , it was very conservative in its execution IMNSHO). Water on the shoulder was nice. But both I will have forgotten in a few years. In the end I would not care less for politic I want to see good SF and fantasy float up , being written by and about transgender lesbian women non white or white male. After all I liked Friday from Heinlein. The problem is that definitively this year politics took over from both side.

My final verdict : both side can go to hell.

Comment Because it brings nothing to the conversation (Score 1) 203

Note that the blurb does already state this does not happen for all user. coming in and stating "it does not happen to me" bring nothing to the conversation. At all. You did not even both posting a complete and detailed configuration or anything. This is the same type of post people hate "the game is working for me". Yeah no shit sherlock, it is working for SOME. What is interesting is why it is not working for other. And in which constellation. This is why people jumped on you. Imagine 2 people discussing about their cancer and you come in and state "hey but I am healthy". Same deal.

Comment To a limited extent correct but misleading (Score 1) 663

Those you cited do not make you metabolize MORE calories than you consume. In other word if you consume 4000 , some people may get 3000 out of it, some less some more, but never more than 4000. So in effect it STILL is about eating fare more than you need and taking the bad habits of it. That is where the thermodynamic comes in : you cannot get more calories (usage + metabolism) than what you eat. Furthermore I am seriously doubting that the majority of people have metabolism problem. Far more likely they do the same as I do : eat too much.

Comment Doubtful claim (Score 1) 210

The paint repellent urine is not that it bounces back like a wile e coyote gag (how would it? You would have to make the urine and wall a near 100% elastic collision and as a liquid against a solid good luck) in fact video make it clear that he is only projecting the test liquid with force and it barely backs a bit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tacicbV4aI). No the things is that the urine is much easier washed up. It is highly hydrophobic, but ti does not change that the water will not have an elastic collision. In other word, it barely spring back. Pee from 1 foot away and you are safe.

Comment MUtation rate are known (Score 2) 295

Please tells us how many million of years statistically you would need to go from a barley growth factor, to a rice growth factor, and would even the intermediate protein be viable (active) or even if the surrounding gene would still be active.

Yes stuff mutate. That is how we got from bacteria to human over billion of year. The key here is that function of protein evolved too, and sometime mutation are deleterious, and sometime function changes. But if both are sufficiently different, the probability to go from one to the other over statistically human relevant time (e.g. hundreds of year) is trending toward zero. In some case like when researcher inserted fish gene into tomatoe, that probability becomes even low over geological time.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your assessment that the probability we make something catastrophic is relatively low, but stating that the result could be gotten by random mutation in the wild, or even breeding is overstating it , downright to a lie in many case.

Comment There is a slight difference (Score 1) 295

Look I am for GMO because I think the science is sound, and it is maybe as good a progress for the 21th century as the haber process was for the 20th century for food production, but repeating the often trotted "breeding/wild mutation is the same as GMO" is stupid. Even idiot religiously fearing GMO are not that idiot to swallow that you can breed in nature fish protein into tobaccoe plant by cross breeding or wild reproduction, or plant with philia so far away from each other with barley growth factor if the growth factor are so much different. So you should not tell a totally complete lie. Such naturally mutation can only slightly change protein and not suddenly put new protein from a completely different specie or even philia suddenly in the plant. You would need million maybe 10s of million of years to get such accumulated mutation (if ever in the fish protein case), and anybody can see that such very long term adaptation has a different impact on an ecosystem than immediate gene change. I am not saying this is a bad thing, just that comparing the two is stupid. There is a difference of time scale, and adaptation in both case, and as well as what you can reach as far as changes go.

Please just don't. Refrain in future. You are just making it more difficult for us to convince the GMO fearing when you spread such obvious bad comparison.

Comment Sound pretty stupid (Score 3, Interesting) 480

Normally you reserve good attire when there is client contact. Having formal attire for technician and engineer when there is no client contact is contra productive, you force people into a certain fashion which they might be uncomfortable with, for no good reason. That is a sure sign a hierarchy has lost sight of what is essential , and instead concentrate on rules which makes no sense , as to show they are doing "something". I expect no good future strategy from them from now onward.

Comment alternatively (Score 1) 169

Alternatively there has been dumb people publishing their attempt on twitter or whatnot. Now , a lone snipper or gunman or bomb maker, which do not publish what they will do beforehand, that would be something else. Especially with drone which can hold enough weight to have a gun or a bomb. Also remember , some people landed and there were drone on the white house zone. Which leads me to think, the secret service might not be that incredible either, but enough to catch the most dumb and less likely to reach their goal.

Comment Broken clock (Score 1) 159

Yeah 1 point seem to have an effect. But is it 1) the effect predicted by chinese acupuncture and 2) all other point do pretty much nothing from previous study and deliver effect with shame acupuncture (giving the impression of needle going in but not penetrating). Basically broken clock.

Of course you can't flap your arms and fly to the moon. After a while you'd run out of air to push against.

Working...