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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Large herbivores were doomed from the start (Score 1) 82

by hey! (#49608019) Attached to: Empty Landscape Looms, If Large Herbivores Continue to Die Out

Err... really? Sixty million American Bison disappeared from the Great Plains because they were big? Then why did the passenger pigeon over the same period go from the most numerous bird in the world to extinct? It's true that the largest baleen whale -- the Blue Whale, is listed as "threatened"; but the smallest baleen whale, the pygmy right whale is either extinct or very close to it.

It's not as simple as big == headed for extinction. Sometimes bigness is a factor in extinction, sometimes it's a factor in survival.

Comment: Re:human overpopulation (Score 1) 82

The sad truth that no one will ever talk about is that there are way to many humans on the earth to ensure the rest of the animals are not brought to extinction. we need to cut the human population in half in the next 100 years (by breeding less, not killing people off) if we really want to sustain the earth

A few points here:

1. We are eventually going to end up with too many humans of course, but we are can manage just fine with 7 billion. The alarmist faction here is woefully misinformed--population density maps show that there is plenty of physical living space and despite the hysterical rants of organic food nutjobs--who are, whether they realize it or not, advocating a return to extremely inefficient and environmentally damaging forms of food production--the fact is food supply is not a problem at all. CO2 emissions and other forms of global pollution is trickier but the solution there ultimately has to be technological. Asking us to address this by cutting the global population down to 3.5 billion is neither realistic nor terribly effective.

2. Breeding less appears to more or less occur organically as per-capita income increases. As hard as it is to figure out how to drag rural China and India and Africa into the family of first world nations, I still think that's going to be easier than trying to convince billions of dirt poor and often illiterate people to use condoms.

3. Regarding animal extinction, again you have to consider the potential effects of increased development. One of the biggest threats to the rainforests is slash and burn farming--obviously, this is something that naturally goes away once a society becomes more developed. Illegal logging has emerged in some areas as another major threat, but this too mostly goes away once a country has advanced to the point of having an effective police force.

Facebook

Facebook Wants to Skip the Off-Site Links, Host News Content Directly 9

Posted by timothy
from the a-few-seconds-a-few-seconds-there dept.
The Wall Street Journal, in a report also cited by The Next Web and others, reports that Facebook is to soon begin acting not just as a conduit for news links pasted onto users' timelines (and leading to articles hosted elsewhere) but also as a host for the articles themselves. From the WSJ article: To woo publishers, Facebook is offering to change its traditional revenue-sharing model. In one of the models under consideration, publishers would keep all of the revenue from ads they sell on Facebook-hosted news sites, the people familiar with the matter said. If Facebook sells the advertisement, it would keep roughly 30% of the revenue, as it does in many other cases. Another motivation for Facebook to give up some revenue: It hopes the faster-loading content will encourage users to spend more time on its network. It is unclear what format the ads might take, or if publishers will be able to place or measure the ads they sell within Facebook. It seems likely Facebook would want publishers to use its own advertising-technology products, such as Atlas and LiveRail, as opposed to those offered by rivals such as Google Inc.

Comment: Re:She has a point. (Score 1) 548

by foreverdisillusioned (#49607803) Attached to: My High School CS Homework Is the Centerfold
I'm not saying sexual comments directed towards females were unheardof (although I can't recall any instances offhand that were directed at a female that wasn't a friend joking right along with them. Admittedly I didn't go to a lot of frat parties, but then again that's not what we're talking about here.) I'm saying that, when exposed to or talking about a picture of a naked female, I never witnessed any kind of male sexual frenzy that instantly targeted nearby females with jokes or crude suggestions. If there were any jokes, the picture itself was the subject of the joke.

The meme I am questioning here is the one that says that males looking at, or perhaps even laughing about a picture of female nudity in any way creates a "hostile atmosphere". This is a phenomenon I simply do not believed I've ever witnessed. What I *can* imagine are prudes (both male and female) becoming uncomfortable with the sight of nudity, or the sight of other people making jokes about sex or nudity. Some people appear to interpret their own, personal discomfort as evidence of a hostile atmosphere directed *at them* (or at the entire female gender.) I'm just saying that people really don't work like that. If you are female and you wander down Bourbon street during Mardi Gras, sure you will encounter people asking you to do things. But that atmosphere is just a wee bit different from seeing a picture of a face in class and hearing someone else giggle and mention that the full pic is a Playboy centerfold. What is the dirty comment here: "Maybe you should pose for Playboy too?" "Oh, so that's why you got into CS?" These are extremely inane comments of a sort that I've never heard. But the poster I was replying to said he was 100% sure that ALL of the girls in the CS class would have been exposed to something like this due to Lena's cropped picture being used. I hope you will at least agree that this is, at minimum, crazed hyperbole.

Comment: This isn't a Daily Mail fabrication (Score 1) 548

by foreverdisillusioned (#49607569) Attached to: My High School CS Homework Is the Centerfold

Seems like it was one moronic head at one school, and some bullshit hype from the Daily Mail. Pigs are not being banned in children's books, the publishers have confirmed it.

The publishers blew a hell of a lot of hot air during which they denied blanket bans "in dictionaries" and agreed that they would never "edit a pig out of a work of historical fiction"; however:

"What we do, however, is consider avoiding references to a range of topics that could be considered sensitive – in a way that does not compromise quality, or negatively impact learning. So, for example, if animals are depicted shown in a background illustration, we would think carefully about which animals to choose."

This is covered in layers of squishy politicospeak. They will "consider", they would "think carefully", yadda yadda yadda. This is clearly obscurantist, euphamistic babble. What are their actual policies and guidelines given to authors? This is what Graun has to say, a paper not generally known for their support of Daily Mail anti-Muslim puffery:

One brief for an author seen by the Guardian warned that the book: “should also work in all areas of the world including more modest markets like the Middle East. For this reason you must be extremely cautious about cultural taboos such as young men and women cohabiting as students, or girls going shopping for shorts, or friends going out drinking.”

Doesn't mention pigs, but I think it's relevant (particularly the girls + shorts bit.) This is written evidence actually "seen by the Guardian". Other evidence re: pigs that was printed in the Guardian is testimony from the authors themselves. So yeah, the very next day the publisher comes along and smears it all over with weasel-words that admit some form of soft-ban is in place... and you interpret this as proof the entire claim against them was a right-wing fabrication. Well done!

I doubt many people would agree with your logic, since the obviously conclusion must be that any kind of pornography or images are acceptable in a classroom

No, my "logic" is that pictures of faces being deemed unacceptable because they happened to be cropped from a larger nude image is a dangerous attitude to placate. With right-wing prudes, you are catering to people who will be perfectly happy to ride this slippy slope until classical art has been censored as well (See: John Ashcroft and Lady Justice.) With left-wing prudes... well, I'm not even sure what their endgame is, but it appears to involve vilifying male sexuality and/or treating women as psychologically brittle.

Comment: Re: Hahah (Score 1) 189

And you're telling me you and your friends never did anything stupid? When you were 15 you were as sober as a 30 year-old?

Or maybe treating kids like nothing they do has consequences,

This is what is called a false dichotomy. You don't treat kids like adults who have misbehaved; you treat kids like kids who have misbehaved. Or do you think that a 12 year-old who starts a fire playing with matches should be treated like a 40 year who starts a fire playing with matches, because in the end they did the same thing?

What I'm saying is take the age of the offender into account in how you punish them. This isn't some kind of radical new liberal idea. It's how this country operated until the end of the 20th C.

Comment: Re:The problem is Big Government (Score 1) 172

by PopeRatzo (#49607229) Attached to: FBI Slammed On Capitol Hill For "Stupid" Ideas About Encryption

Sorry, but that is a highly anti-scientific approach.

Wait a minute. How is THIS an "anti-scientific approach"?

This is the entirety of my statement:

I would highly recommend people google "Trevor Loudon" and make their own decisions about him.

All I'm recommending is that people google "Trevor Loudon" and read his articles and watch his YouTube videos and decide about his evidence for themselves. What's wrong with that approach in your eyes? It's exactly what you recommended in your comment about him.

If you google "Trevor Loudon" you will find the first couple pages of results are entirely articles that praise Mr Loudon from important sources such as The Blaze, gulagbound.com and investigatingobama.blogspot.com. The very first search result is Trevor Loudon's own blog. Why would you be afraid of people finding that out?

You're a fucking nutbag, you are. You don't even want people to read Trevor Loudon's actual writings when you are here promoting him?

Comment: Re:"Tax the rich" canard (Score 1) 346

by PopeRatzo (#49607183) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

and how do you plan to

Dumbshit, what part of, "I'm not endorsing that policy, only pointing out that blockquote you decided to put in bold face, was in fact, boldly untrue." do you not understand?

I'm not in favor of taxing millionaires at 100% any more than you're in favor of allowing felons to own guns or legalizing rape.

Oh wait...

Comment: Re: Hahah (Score 1) 189

Yours apparently has some way to go. Or maybe it's too far gone.

The brain isn't one big ball of mush. It has different parts that perform different functions. You get injured in your Broca's area and you won't be able speak or write. I've seen it in stroke patients; it doesn't matter that the rest of their brains is just good as new, they don't have any expressive language. Likewise if your orbital frontal cortex is damaged or not fully developed yet, you're going to act like an ass. Doesn't matter how smart or well-meaning you are.

Teenaged brains can be misleading, because in some ways they're at their lifetime peak. But at the same time they suck at certain things. A smart fifteen year-old can explain the difference between right and wrong, between a smart and stupid action. But he can't be trusted to act in accordance to that kind of knowledge, because among other things the OFC isn't finished yet. This is why parents get fooled into thinking their wonderful children won't do dumb things. You simply cannot expect a teenager to act intelligently because he has knowledge. The knowledge helps, but it does't determine behavior in a fifteen year-old as it does in a thirty year-old.

Comment: Re:Remeber (Score 2) 87

i see it as a similar conceit to anti-vaxxers

anyone who grew up when it was common for children to die at a young age due to common diseases would vaccinate wholeheartedly. but, distant those horrors, the effort necessary to maintain the status quo of healthy children becomes all you see: vaccinations, sticking needles in children, strange concotions i don't understand...

likewise, you have these similar fools who see the benefits of a regulated marketplace, but only see the onerous regulations, and not the horrors of what an unregulated marketplace is really like. so they react to the regulations as if they are the actual evil, just like anti-vaxxers

anyone who survived (broke) one of the many banking panics of the 1800s would claim the FDIC the greatest godsend. but, now that we don't have runs on banks, we just have this "evil" "world domination" "freedom destroying" scheme called the FDIC: morons think the FDIC is the actual evil

it's a conceit of lack of experience, lack of education, no awareness of history, prideful ignorance

"Time is money and money can't buy you love and I love your outfit" - T.H.U.N.D.E.R. #1

Working...