Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Fun with Logic (Score 1) 264

by brasscount (#39930991) Attached to: Methane Producing Dinosaurs May Have Changed Climate
Argument inspired by gaseous dinosaurs:
1) Methane is a greenhouse gas
2) Eating fibrous vegetation creates methane
3) Creation of methane increases your carbon footprint.
.: If one eats less fibrous vegetation, then one produces less methane, and therefore has a reduced carbon footprint.
+ 1) Livestock eat much fibrous vegetation.
.: Livestock have high carbon footprints
++ 1) Decreasing carbon footprint is good.
++ 2) Killing livestock that have high carbon footprints decrease carbon footprint.
++ 3) Waste is bad.
++ 4) Eating livestock that have been killed to decrease carbon footprint does not waste the livestock.
++ 5) Vegans do not eat or kill livestock.
.: Vegans are bad, because they waste livestock and increase carbon footprint.
Conversely: Carnivores are good for the environment because they do not eat fibrous vegetation, and they do not waste livestock, which they kill, thereby reducing carbon footprints.
1) Some people are carnivores
2) Some carnivores eat vegans.
3) Vegans increase carbon footprint which is bad.
4) A person who eats people is a cannibal
.: A cannibal that eats vegans and is a carnivore is improving the environment by reducing carbon footprint.

Comment: Re:Bureaucrats Not Officers (Score 4, Insightful) 1059

by brasscount (#38615732) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What's the Best Way To Deal With Roving TSA Teams?
Is there a difference anymore? Do they have enforcement authority? Half of the regulators have some sort of enforcement authority that they self-authorized in the federal register. Don't cooperate, let them do whatever they're going to do, and when they don't find anything, sue for false imprisonment. There is an ambulance chaser somewhere interested in making a buck...

Comment: An attempted logical analysis of this question. (Score 1) 750

by brasscount (#31287368) Attached to: Should I Take Toyota's Software Update?

In the computer world, we're all taught to only install firmware updates if there is a real problem because a large percentage of firmware updates actually brick the hardware or cause other unforeseen bugs.

In the computer security world, we craft effigies of people like you and burn them for not installing the patch that causes the security failure. Lets see if I can follow the logic:

1)The patch that prevents me from dying might break my car.
2)My car is under warranty.
3)My dealer will install the patch, and therefore accept liability for breaking my car.

.: I should:
a) Not accept the patch, and risk DYING.
b) Let the dealer install the patch, understanding that he must fix the car that he breaks while doing the warranty repair work, and accept the consequences, up to and including the dealer providing a new car for breaking my car.

Can anyone help me to understand the argument against installing the update?

BYTE editors are people who separate the wheat from the chaff, and then carefully print the chaff.