Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:This is a rare breed of human. (Score 1) 758

by bartwol (#42499703) Attached to: Anti-GMO Activist Recants

If a customer wants to know if food contains a particular ingredient...

Yes, he should know. But then, you're not talking about disclosure of an ingredient. You're talking about disclosure of the use of various processes you don't like, without having substantiated the materiality of risks of those processes.

My main concern is [...runaway...] GMOs and turning millions of people into unwitting lab rats.

Those would be unsubstantiated fears. And though your fear is undoubtedly "real", that which you fear is invented.

The courts, quite rightly, have little use for unsubstantiated claims. It is not Mansanto's money that compels the actions of the courts; it is the substance of Monsanto's arguments.

Imagine as you will. The courts will not be easy prey for your fears.

Comment: Re:This is a rare breed of human. (Score 1) 758

by bartwol (#42487321) Attached to: Anti-GMO Activist Recants

If GMOs are really so safe, why the tremendous resistance to putting a simple label on the food?

For the same reason that people have resisted requiring schools to include "creation science" in their text books.

Before you pass a law requiring people to disclose information, you should have a burden to reasonably demonstrate the significance and materiality of that information. If you try to take your anti-GMO "science" to a U.S. court of law, just as the creationists tried with theirs, you'll fail miserably as they did.

The law is not a playground for your unsubstantiated beliefs. (Slashdot, however, is.)

Comment: Re:Dubious? (Score 2) 412

by bartwol (#36520570) Attached to: Paying Hacker Extortion

Very dubious. Slashdot often posts BS stories simply because doing so engages their readers. It is not a requirement of the editors that a story has integrity; only that a certain percentage of the stories have integrity. That's enough to keep people coming back with hope that their time isn't going to be wasted.

This time, we're losers. And, yes, to me, it is mildly humiliating to be a participant in this.

Slashdot. Not journalism. Infotainment. Hi BS quotient.

(And that's why I read and respond less and less every year.)

Comment: Re:Oracle, are you paying attention? (Score 1) 146

by bartwol (#35525052) Attached to: Drizzle Hits General Availability

So I've spent years building my application on top of MySQL. And MySQL has done its job just fine...before Oracle and since.

Now comes along a fork, a new database, that solves *what* problem for me?

I'm looking for an effective DBMS (which I have in MySQL), not a company (or CEO) to love.

Are *you* paying attention? To *what*?

Comment: Re:Epic Fail (Score 1) 300

by bartwol (#35453756) Attached to: Wi-Fi Shown To Interfere With Aircraft Systems

How in the world are new devices developed and approved for production that ignore the possibility of EMI from portable devices? There are no excuses for such negligence.

How, you ask? Well, really, if you wanted to know, then you wouldn't be asking such a foolish question. And you wouldn't be calling it "negligence."

How in the world do people routinely concoct unsupported technical judgements (such as yours) about things they don't technically understand, and then share those judgements with the world as if they are insightful?

Not surprisingly, most of the loudest and least articulate people are way up in the nosebleed section of the bleachers, far away from the players in the game, who, unlike you, must move beyond just [trite] words.

There are plenty of excuses for your ignorance. But none of them justifies it.

Go home.

Comment: Re:Its not the speed that is the problem. (Score 1) 1026

by bartwol (#35165746) Attached to: Obama Calling For $53B For High Speed Rail

do really, really rich people still feel comfortable lending us money for long periods at low interest rates?

As opposed to what? As opposed to leaving their currency sit while the controllers of the currency dilute its value by printing $2 trillion dollars/year? Do you pretend that Joe Investor (oh...excuse me...Joe "Really Really Rich" Investor) has an alternative?

It amazes me that we can watch one bubble build and burst after another, and people like you still can't figure out that you can't spend more money than you can only come up with lame-ass excuses like yours until, once again, the bubble bursts. And even then, you'll blame somebody else as if an intellectual theory could somehow transcend the conservation of mass.'re right...just print more money. BRILLIANT!!!

Comment: Re:The trap of a simple world view (Score 1) 541

by bartwol (#34861284) Attached to: Autism-Vax Doc Scandal Was Pharma Business Scam

But your analysis, your decision-making, should not be done in the context of the "media cycle", but instead, by preponderance of the evidence (well-formed studies, well-qualified facts).

You present the major rights and wrongs in this case (and others) as being ambiguous. They are, but only if you choose to be informed by that media cycle of which you speak. Why would you choose, in your final analysis, to be informed by the media cycle? Why do you frame the decisions as in any way having to be made within the context of misinformation instead of well-qualified information?

I suspect that, for whatever reason, your own truth is best rationalized in the context of the media cycle, or, that you somehow benefit by influencing people within the context of their own ignorance (and susceptibility to weak rationalizations such as you present here). That would certainly explain your well-phrased appeal for us to be understanding of, well, nonsense. But you've simply presented a foolish context within which to make important decisions that are fairly easily and reasonably resolved within the context of good information.

The ambiguities you affirm are, for the most part, only affirmed within the context of misinformation and a willingness to trust untrustworthy sources. The issues are much clearer than you suggest, which is telling of your own brand of bluster.

Comment: Congressmen already making cuts? (Score 1) 760

by bartwol (#34597954) Attached to: 'YouCut' Targets National Science Foundation Budget

The smart move is to cut YouCut, because your Congressman should already be cutting the crap you dislike,

Do you think so? Because *my* Congressman *doesn't* seem to be cutting much of anything.

The cuts always seem to be "scheduled." When does that "schedule" happen? What does it mean when they say "the cuts are scheduled."?

And when they cut, isn't total spending supposed to go down? What do they mean by "cut"?

Where can I get me one of those Congressman of which you speak?

I'm _really_ confused.

Comment: Re:Illegal - yes. Stealing - no. (Score 1) 244

by bartwol (#34522936) Attached to: Ex-Goldman Sachs Programmer Found Guilty
From here:

When a party takes away or wrongfully assumes the right to goods which belong to another, it will in general be sufficient evidence of a conversion

He wrongfully assumed a right to use computer code (and sought to derive value from it), in violation of the terms of his employment.

And I didn't even have to walk across the hall and [blah...blah...blah...]

Comment: Re:Smooth Criminals (Score 1) 244

by bartwol (#34522892) Attached to: Ex-Goldman Sachs Programmer Found Guilty

Goldman Sachs are the criminals. Why aren't they all on trial too? All this guy did was steal a little code. They've been robbing their customers for years.

Well...if laws were built on hyperbole, and the typical juror were as reckless and imprudent as a typical Slashdot poster...well *then* they would be on trial too.

Greed, deceptiveness, even malice...these are offenses of the spirit but are not, in and of themselves, offenses of law which, when well-constructed, creates a standard that PROTECTS US ALL from being caught in a great net of grievances and contempt that seethes inside all but the most saintly among us.

Comment: Re:Pffff Warming ... ice age ... they're both comi (Score 1) 747

by bartwol (#34521172) Attached to: Doubling of CO2 Not So Tragic After All?

Yes, some people rely on World Health Organization pronouncements. As a matter of fact, MOST people rely on highly politicized sources, like WHO, for their pronouncements. Many people, in fact, rely on commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann (in the U.S.) as highly credible sources.

A very few people rely much more heavily on primary sources, basic research, because they think that's more credible (and I do to). You get to see the methods by which the data are produced...helpful context, I think. Of course, the source data and its conclusions are much more modest, disjointed and inconclusive than those other sources. But hey...everybody makes his own choice of what's credible, yes?

Anyway, I do apologize for having accused you of asserting that 150000 people are dying annually due to climate change. I thought you were saying that.

Comment: Re:Pffff Warming ... ice age ... they're both comi (Score 1) 747

by bartwol (#34518330) Attached to: Doubling of CO2 Not So Tragic After All?

I see your assertion that 150,000 people are *already* dying annually due to climate change. And I read the cited article. You find substance in that article?

I have no hope nor inclination to change your mind about any of this. But please consider this: aside from the many uninformed people and faux skeptics, there are very well-informed, deeply considerate and concerned people who have thus far arrived at conclusions that differ greatly from yours. To the extent that they may wish to see inaction on the issue of AGW, you are a Poster Child who, among others, make *the* most compelling cases for skepticism.

150000 dead, indeed.

Carry on.

Comment: Re:Pffff Warming ... ice age ... they're both comi (Score 1) 747

by bartwol (#34513250) Attached to: Doubling of CO2 Not So Tragic After All?

a lot of people are going to die from the effects of climate change

Very unlikely. More likely, they'll die from hunger, poor sanitation, civil war..all so much more attributable to lack of economic development and social ills than to climate change. And if they don't die for those reasons, they'll die for others.

Perhaps my biggest concern about the focus on climate change is that it diverts attention away from the more salient, and manageable, factors that hasten death. I really think the GP is right on about keeping apprised of scale.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -- Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS