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

 



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

Comment: Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score 1) 528 528

by bickerdyke (#49977201) Attached to: The Town That Banned Wi-Fi

No:
It shows that all people who have been tested so far and claim to have electromagnetic sensitivity don't have it.

Yes:
There is no reason to assume they have a real illness

But No again:
That's no proof.

That's scientifically rather unsatisfying.

On the other hand, we have scientifically proven, that humans ARE sensitive to higher levels of EM fields. It's safe to assume that the threshold varies from person to person. It's also safe to assume, for 99% this threshold is orders of magnitudes away from the levels we receive from the nearest cellphone and wifi,

But it doesn't answer the question about the lowest possible level that someone could be sensitive to!

The psychosomatic electrosensitivity is not connected at all to the real effects. But it makes serious research about possible effects of low intensity exposition almost impossible as it will be inevitably get mixed up.

Comment: Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score 1) 528 528

by bickerdyke (#49976613) Attached to: The Town That Banned Wi-Fi

Nope. We're looking for falsification.

Those experiments only show that no subject sensitive to those low levels has been studied yet.

Granted, it would be easier if you had not to test a bunch of wackos who CLAIM to be sensitive at those levels. And it would be a safe guess and you wouldn't even have to think of designing experiments to prove or disprove low level sensitivity if you could show that high energy levels don't have an effect either, but high levels have an effect.

So we're in the scientific dead end of "we haven't found a pink unicorn/electrosensitive person yet, but have no proof that they don't exist"

Comment: Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score 1) 528 528

by bickerdyke (#49976291) Attached to: The Town That Banned Wi-Fi

Yes, but it's far far more difficult to find out the threshold on how radiated, how far away, how sensitive you have to be to become sterile, or to be completely safe, or to receive damage with which probability. 90%? 0.09%? What probability is considered safe, which one is measurable at all. What about long term effects?

Would be much easier if you could start by showing that even high doses of EM radiation had no ill effects. But now quantitative studies have to be done. Even harder when 99% of those people feeling bad when seeing a cellphone tower are indeed... well.. just say: without organic diagnosis.

Comment: The C++ master (Score 1) 342 342

by bickerdyke (#49968195) Attached to: Knowing C++ Beyond a Beginner Level

The C++ master knows C, too and never forgets that he is still programming as close to the "bare metal" as with C. The only thing between him and the processor is the compiler, and no virtual machine, bytecode, or CLR runtime. C++ is a tool to write good (readable, reusable, "object oriented") C code.

Comment: Re:Wow, just wow... (Score 1) 490 490

I wouldn't say you're wrong, but you're coming from a different angle. You're right with the basic problem: The pink craze. But the other one is bringing girls (back) into tech!

Yes. We're very far away from solving #1. Especially if, as stated in the article, a whole industry pushes FOR toy sex segregation. (NOT sex toy segregation.)

But while we're waiting for the toy industry to bring back a gender neutral toy segment, shouldn't we try to bring science toys into the girls department nevertheless? So at least this won't get even worse? And if that means case modding kits not only available in sci-fi-military style, but also in pink-unicorn-style... well, I don't care.

Of course teaching about Hedy Lamarr and Marie Curie and Emilia Earhart and Heidi Hetzer and Walentina Tereschkowa of course will help, too. And NOT in a special "Womans achievments that didn't made it into regular curriculum" class.

Comment: nice analysis (Score 1) 490 490

OK, now I actually read the article... basically, the article is right in a way it identifies the root problem: The segregation of all toys into boys and girls. Including the idea behind it: Creating less reusable toys. But then, the article failed to notice that this has nothing to do with STEM toys or not. In fact, it is one of three possible solutions:

1. Force toy industry to retreat and have a gender-neutral toy section again, which then could include stem/educational toys
2. Bring stem/educational toys into the dedicated "girls" section by conforming to stereotyped "girls" toys
3. Agains all advertising and peer pressure, somehow get or force your kids to play with toys for the other gender. (Good luck with that one. may be possible, if your kid is able to withstand that peer pressure, he or she would have traced their carreer plans disregarding any social pressure anyway.)

Comment: Re:Wow, just wow... (Score 1) 490 490

So girls should be interested in programming and other STEM-stuff, but luring them into this field with some pink-colored IDE (or whatever) is ALSO wrong?

So what would be the practical way to get girls interested in STEM-Toys that are geared at boys? It's "Superprincess Barbie" that stamps all those stereotypes onto girls. You can't blame "gendered" science-toys to pick them up in the pink hell where they have already landed.

The universe is like a safe to which there is a combination -- but the combination is locked up in the safe. -- Peter DeVries

Working...