Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment: Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score 2) 130 130

the whole point of locations is that they be basically what the death camps are today- aka, public places, museums

No. As a funny side note, it's amazing how some officials go out of their ways to avoid labeling these places as "museums". The new expression "documentation centeres" was coined for museums in non-museum-worthy places.

Comment: Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score 1) 529 529

It shows that all people who have been tested so far and claim to have electromagnetic sensitivity don't have it.

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) 529 529

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) 529 529

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) 345 345

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.

You're using a keyboard! How quaint!