Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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: Completely stupid (Score 1) 342

by burtosis (#49185827) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?
So let me get this right. You are in a 'driverless car'. Yet your job is to painstakenly hover over the controls trying to double guess the AI every single second you are in the vehicle?!???!! Good luck with that because if the AI fucks up you have a second or two tops to stop yourself from becoming road paste. It sounds like a massive copout from manufacturers wanting to sell autonomous features before the technology is mature enough to realistically insure and assure customer safety.

Comment: Reproducable? (Score 4, Insightful) 434

by burtosis (#49185357) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills
Here is how that will work:

EPA: We have never seen the like of your flagrant disregard for all regulation, you are single handedly responsible for massive amounts of pollution. We have documentation of your polluting over the last 5 years.

Evil Corporation: Yes well now that we are done with our drilling projects could you reproduce those measurements just to be sure?

EPA: we had highly sensitive instruments, your pollution was beyond obvious - just look at the corpses!

Evil Corporation: So you can't reproduce the data?

EPA: how are we supposed to do that? Use a time machine?

Evil Corporation: well if that's all you got we are done here. Off to expand our corporate rights beyond mere citizenship.

Comment: Re:International waters (Score 1) 61

by burtosis (#49184285) Attached to: SpaceX's Challenge Against Blue Origins' Patent Fails To Take Off
Simple, America owns the world. Sure there have been rejections in the past. But how many were from first class citiz^h^h^h^horporations? Likely those are just second class idiots with no real rights. Or they plan on landing inside Territory belonging to a country with valid patent laws and existing IP. I'm not sure which is more reasonable to be honest.

Comment: Re:Hey Roblimo: Make a "loser edit" autobiography! (Score 1) 144

by burtosis (#49180619) Attached to: Technology's Legacy: the 'Loser Edit' Awaits Us All

The job of an editor is NOT to just present stories that go along with the group-think of the day. We have Faux News and their ilk for that. Also, if they edit submissions too much "for clarity" the submitter will complain that's not what they wrote. So what are you going to do?

Well, would it be too much to ask for them to fix the typos and make sure the links work?

Despite your low id you must be new here. The answer is yes it's too much.

Comment: Re: This attitude pisses me off (Score 1) 130

by burtosis (#49169497) Attached to: Photo First: Light Captured As Both Particle and Wave

Nobody 'travels through time' when they get close to lightspeed, it is just the Universe in front of you that gets flatter, like a pancake, so you cover a shorter distance, in the same time. For those, who move about like the light, the Universe is, like, 2D in the direction of movement, so you travel instantaneously.

The rest of the universe ages noticably past .9c and when you are nearly lightspeed a billion years of rest speed with respect to the cosmic microwave background could pass for each second of your perception. So yes you do travel through time. People would 'see' you as frozen in time, moving at one billion times slower than normal. Of course they would need to stretch out your compressed and distorted image but the idea is valid.

Comment: Re:This attitude pisses me off (Score 1) 130

by burtosis (#49169485) Attached to: Photo First: Light Captured As Both Particle and Wave
Unless you have an isotopic source of photons (point source) the photons will have preferential directions. Not that the probability is exactly zero for some directions, but for a flashlight style beam the chance a photon will make it through the reflector, battery, case, and perhaps part of your hand is quite low.

Comment: Misleading summary (Score 2) 130

by burtosis (#49169471) Attached to: Photo First: Light Captured As Both Particle and Wave
It is not theoretically possible to both capture a single photon as both a wave and particle simeltaneously. What they have done is show a set of thousands (millions?) of electron photon interactions at the same instant in time arranged on 2 axis. Basically the lower and slower lumps become particles and the upper smoother lines show waves. So its neat and a first for light waves afaik but misleading as it is not a photo of a single photon.

Comment: New ways to protect privacy are needed! (Score 1) 194

by burtosis (#49166447) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications
We need to make laws to force the public to stop making inquiries as it's seriously imposing undue police and government right to privacy. We need to incarcerate these people and lock them up for twice as long as people who get caught smoking a joint - yes for life!!!

/sarcasm

Comment: Re:Sell any stock before they launch this... (Score 1) 375

by burtosis (#49163745) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links

To be fair the Abrahamic religions actually do overlap in many - perhaps the majority - of their cosmological beliefs.

Only if you assume very vague details. When actually questioned in a explicit way, very little actually overlaps. For example is god one entity or three? How about Jesus - prophet or god or neither? When you go beyond a handful of vague agreements you find that there is very little overlap indeed. In fact even within a specific religion or sect it varies by region and even church to church. The whole idea of a personal god, which pretty much always translates into god being exactly as the observer prefers, renders any objective universal coherence invalid.

Comment: Re:Sell any stock before they launch this... (Score 1) 375

by burtosis (#49163703) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links
There is no evidence outside the bible of Jesus. You would have thought with all the miracles, dead comming back to life, and trouble making someone would have noticed. The name Jesus wasn't even invented untill hundreds of years after the new testament was written - it was closer to Joshua in the original Greek that it was written in. Even then no records exist. The authors are actually not who they claim to be, even religous scholars agree on this. Therefore everything is a fiction and false. Yes the original comment was a bit tongue in cheek but if EVERY SINGLE falsifiable fact in the bible is proven wrong, tens of thousands of them, and zero are substantiated, then yes you are intellectually dishonest for beleiving the rantings of a syphilus addled brain bronze age goat herder over repeatable experiment you can see with your own eyes. You obviously don't believe in Thor or thousands of other gods. Have the balls to go just one more.

Comment: Re:Sell any stock before they launch this... (Score 1) 375

by burtosis (#49161583) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links
Ok ok, I'll grant a few true facts on religious websites - such as we had a potluck last Wednesday. But the vast majority of claims are false. My god man they all conflict - Christians, Jews, Muslims - the overlap in concensus is tiny and the facts backing up what is agreed on are basically nonexistent. It takes a seriously intellectually dishonest mind to believe that one must be right at the expense of all the rest. Even more so when you ignore the mountains of facts that show religious revelation false.

Comment: Sell any stock before they launch this... (Score 1, Troll) 375

by burtosis (#49160443) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links
I mean imagine if they *really* did push down pages with incorrect facts!!!?! ALL religious websites - all homeopathy websites - Fox News all down at the bottom. Not to mention how they would handle irony - it would actually be sad to see sites like The Onion punished. It's a nice idea but would require human level strong AI to automate and it still wouldn't be obvious where to draw the line.

ASHes to ASHes, DOS to DOS.

Working...