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:Amen brother! (Score 5, Insightful) 424 424

you get only Taylor Swift and Kardashian search results.

And that is what the Republicans want. This is their bread and circuses plan. They're keeping us distracted from the fact that they want us to die. They want us to die.

Dude, the "cultural divide" between the Republicans and Democrats is the distraction. We are kept busy screaming at each other over stupid, ideological bullshit rather than working to make things better for everyone (except the oligarchs that run the circus.)

Comment: Re:I wouldn't expect this to be a problem for long (Score 1) 298 298

So what's your answer to ISIS? Just let them be?

Yes. ISIS is not a serious threat to the US. For all their saber waving and demonizing of the US, they are part of an Islamic/political civil war that we are (once again) sticking our nose into. It's not like we care about the brutality of Sharia Law. Saudi Arabia officially sanctions beheading their own citizens, as do many of our "friends" in the region. So we're there for oil. But the Saudi's and many other fortunes rely on being able to sell oil. We should let them take responsibility for "stability in the middle east" and stop meddling. We're bad at it and it's time to face the fact.

Comment: Re:I look forward to the biased reporting. (Score 1) 851 851

LOL why yes I do.

You are OK with the government making personal choices arbitrarily difficult.

Riddle me this, how do you feel about anal sex ?. Seeing as it is a known a public health hazard http://www.health.com/health/c...

I mean if you are ok with transfats being banned why not the major method of aids transmission ?

Yes, I'm OK with the government banning the sale of food prepared in people's asses. I am not OK with the government preventing people from preparing their own food in their ass. Understand the difference?

Comment: Re:The Jack LaLane Ammendment! (Score 1) 851 851

If you're eating something and it tastes good, SPIT IT OUT!

Notice that the old fucker still died anyhow.

We need to stop with the nanny state bullshit like this.

EVERYTHING out there is bad for you when not taken in moderation.

Personal fucking responsibility!

You are free to eat all the transfats you want. You are not free to sell food made with transfats to the general public. Just as you are free to sit at home and eat your own feces and drink urine. But the Nanny State won't let you sell food made with (more than a few parts per million) of feces or urine. I'm OK with that.

Comment: Re:I look forward to the biased reporting. (Score 1) 851 851

Let me ask you this. If you can legalize Marijuana why should a big drink or a Croissant be illegal ?

I am not aware of a law preventing you from eating all the transfats you want. Just as there is no law preventing you from eating sawdust, or plastic. The FA (focus children!) is about regulating the sale of foods made with transfats, not about you choosing to go out of your way to eat them. As for Croissants, they are legal to eat. They are legal to make. You can't sell them if you used transfats to make them. Understand yet?

Drug policy is a shambles and a different topic. Large drinks, that law was overturned. But even that "absurd" law didn't make it illegal to pour a two liter coke into a bucket and drink it. Just to sell it to the general public pre-poured into a bucket.

Comment: Re:Say Good By to the Rainforests .... (Score 3, Insightful) 851 851

I think you're right to be concerned about the rainforests due to what is already an increasing demand for palm oil.

However, I put the blame on business looking for monoculture farming, and a generally unsustainable US consumer culture. It's not a secret that Americans have stretched resources to and past the breaking point; that we have demanded everything be constantly available, and cheaper every year. It should be obvious to anyone with basic arithmetic skill that that cannot continue indefinitely.

I realize that regulation is now a dirty word, but that is, in fact what is needed. I realize that the international scope of the problem will make that difficult, but the scale of the problem, the size of the disaster looming ought to make it a priority.

I'm sure someone will weigh in, pointing out that shareholder value demands frosting in a can, at the expense of our global carbon sink. Please. Go ahead and make that point.

Flame bait? Seriously? I don't agree that our society is unsustainable, but that's a point for discussion not modding into oblivion. Of course I believe that the way to sustain our society is through recognizing the costs of pollution, deforestation, and the massive release of green house gasses into the atmosphere and using regulation and tax incentives. Blasphemy on this site, I know. And the way to get to sane regulation is to make our government more transparent and to make a constitutional amendment that corporations are not people. People are people and should have rights. Corporations are legal fictions that don't have a natural death and can't be punished.

As for the haters of regulation, we ran that experiment (and sadly are getting ready to run it again.) US rivers were polluted to the point that nothing lived in them. We had "smog days" when we were advised against going outside and exerting ourselves. Rivers caught on fire. I lived through this shit and it saddens me to see people think of it as "the good old days." Of course Libertarians have a solution to that. "Private ownership." So who gets to own the atmosphere? The ocean? Who gets to own the rivers, lakes, aquifers, glaciers (while they last), and rainforests?

Bad regulation sucks. Over regulation sucks. No regulation sucks too. Regulation is like code. Code bloat is bad but the solution is not "no code." The solution isn't "throw it all out and start again" either. The solution is iterative improvement based on real world feedback and improved transparency.

Comment: Re:I do not consent (Score 1) 851 851

So I can sell you sugar laced with arsenic? I can sell you rat labeled as chicken? Get real. You're very happy with the people telling your stores what they can and cannot sell you as long as it's some perceived benefit rather than some perceived slight.

Why in the world you would consider this a limit on your personal freedom I have no idea but we all have our crosses to bear. This may be one of yours, I guess. What exactly do you have a problem with in this decision? The lack of consensus in research or some concern you have over what the replacements will be (and their impacts) or just bitching for the sake of bitching?

Follow the link in his signature. Extreme Christian Libertarian/Anarchist. I wish there was an island-continent for everyone that believed as he does. Honestly, I'd love to watch that experiment play out as long as I didn't have to participate. Too bad Australia is already twice spoken for.

Comment: Re:I do not consent (Score 1) 851 851

What if I want to consume it despite there not being a consensus that it is safe to consume?

You are free to eat it. You are not free to put it in food sold to the general public. Is it so hard to understand the difference between those two scenarios? Is it so hard to understand that with the benefits of civilization come certain responsibilities to the other members of that civilization?

Comment: Re:Challenges... (Score 1) 98 98

Google and facebook have realized that some problems are not (economically) surmountable.

...

Wrong. Google recently invested $900 million in SpaceX specifically to develop a satellite based Internet backbone. All these articles saying Google abandoned satellite constellations are by people that don't know what they are talking about. SpaceX intends to use less expensive, shorter lived satellites. Yes their orbits will naturally decay. That is a feature, not a bug, for SpaceX. They will constantly replenish with newer, cheaper, better satellites. Google decided that it made more sense to support SpaceX's efforts rather than develop it on their own. They believe is economically viable and have placed a substantial bet on SpaceX succeeding.

Comment: Re: SpaceX and Iridium Next (Score 1) 33 33

This whole thing kinda smacks of hardline negotiating... suddenly everyone and their dog was going to launch another LEO constellation, just when Iridium was about to launch the next generation of their product via SpaceX: http://spacenews.com/iridium-n...

From one side, I can sorta see this posturing as SpaceX trying to negotiate better rates from Iridium by says "hey, if you don't want to pay us more to launch your stuff, we'll just partner with Google / Facebook and launch our own LEO constellation."

Then there was also that guy who got the FCC license that expires in 2019, except the consortium he was working with weren't going to have their launches scheduled in time, so he took his license and ran to Richard Branson's Virgin.

Anyway, it seems like the LEO constellation thing is a mess right now, and I can't really tell who's working together and who's working against each other. But it seems moderately interesting from a cloak-n-dagger story. http://spacenews.com/signs-of-...

There is nothing cloak and dagger going on and no strong arming. Iridium is in the satellite handset business. SpaceX is building a satellite based Internet backbone. Google and Fidelity have invested a billion dollars in SpaceX specifically to develop the LEO constellation and SpaceX has opened an office in Seattle and is hiring people to develop the satellites. Google gets access to a satellite based Internet backbone that will help expand access to the developing world, without having to develop it themselves. SpaceX gets a recurring income source to fund it's R&D. Iridium is irrelevant to the deal.

P.S. Iridium would not delay launches as a threat to SpaceX. Delayed deployment is delayed income. SpaceX doesn't "need" to strong arm Iridium, they have a backlog of over 50 launches.

Comment: Re:But Motorola did it. (Score 4, Informative) 33 33

But Motorola did it. (Ducks.) (Ducks 65 more times.)

But the history of Iridium tells a tale that Google appears to have listened to.

It's 66 satellites, not 77 (the actual atomic number of Iridium, the purported reason for the name) because 66 satellites are cheaper to launch and maintain than 77. And still, the company went bankrupt because they couldn't get customers willing to subscribe to the service. And the successor company depends on the US DoD as a major customer -- 23% of their 2012 revenue. That's quite a lifeline -- not one I envision Google's corporate culture rushing out to embrace.

The technical challenges aren't hard, notwithstanding the validity of the "it's rocket science" jokes. The financial and market challenges are the real ones. It's not the same as sticking a website out there and labeling it "Google Foobar (beta)". It makes money from Day One or it gets the hose again.

Google didn't abandon the idea, they invested $900 million in SpaceX instead of trying to do it themselves. And SpaceX isn't going to try to communicate directly to the handset, they are creating a worldwide, LEO based, Internet backbone. It's a completely different business model that will leverage lower cost launches and lots of existing real-estate and infrastructure (Tesla super charger stations and probably some SolarCity projects as well) to bootstrap in the US and much of the developed world. Profits from the project will then likely be used to expand into the developing world. And with almost a billion dollars backing the project it does not have to be profitable from day one.

Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition. - Isaac Asimov

Working...