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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Does US have any real jurisdiction over FIFA? (Score 1) 194 194

. The US at large doesn't give a shit, and would on the balance prefer to not have their regular traffic/TV coverage messed with over a niche sport only played in the suburbs by children. I'm perhaps exaggerating

Not an exaggeration, but I have some OT points. There is a lot more money in World Cup Soccar than in, say, NFL American Football. Actually, that's an understatement. The coverage of NFL, the professional production ethics, the skill of the techs and producers, and the resulting broadcast makes World Cup look like what it is, really really shitty production. I can't tell you how many matches I've attempted to watch where it seems like the company producing the footage is using like maybe 3 cameras, and switches the audiences' view between them. What ever non-american production company gets that contract to produce the footage to televise soccar games is going to be very well compensated, and subsequently, very rich. Why can't they produce a broadcast that isn't painful to watch?

I submit that all it would take is for an American production team capable of covering NFL in the way we're all now accustomed to get the contract to cover the soccar games for the popularity of soccar in the US to increase. Actually, I think if some American film students got the contract, it would make the World Cup games 1000% more digestable to American audiences... and the international community would shit kittens at the increase in quality of the sports coverege.

Again, OT, or skew to the point of FIFA corruption, its obvious the corruption isn't merely at the top but extends to all business of the World Cup... otherwise, how could ONLY shitty foreign production companies land a contract to cover the richest sport in the world?

Comment: Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score 3, Informative) 363 363

The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons. (infringe ~ "even meddle with the fringes of")

Your interpretation is quaint, and incorrect, at least it didn't mean that until 2008, Columbia v. Heller

there is not a single word about an individual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Constitutional Convention

Nor in the Constitution!

The public's understanding of the 2nd Amendment started to be distorted by the NRA early in the last century. The NRA has been filling the minds of gun owners with an interpretation that was never intended by the Founders for some time, so no one can blame you for your incorrect interpretation when a propaganda machine like the NRA has been bombarding you with selective truths and out-right lies.

Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.

That includes gun trafficing, because stopping gun sales makes it harder to exercise the right.

Wow... THAT is OUT THERE. Of course, you are completely mistaken, and this bold statement of yours is wildly, dangerously inaccurate. Gun regulation is legal, and necessary.

Comment: Re:Exodus (Score 1) 692 692

Isn't that just a workaround for "you can't kill people," by letting them kill themselves? I am as romantic as any nerd about space. I even spearheaded a "Get Off the Planet" campaign in college. At the time, I didn't realize the truth of the matter is, the hard cold reality is, there is no place to go, even if it was economically or physically feasable. The only "space" to rationally escape to is Earth's orbit, where its possible to be resupplied.

But the summary premise ignores the fact that there is still plenty of room, i.e. most of the Earth's hard surface is unihabited, and there is even more liquid surface and subsurface uninhabited, quite a bit more. Currently, a lot of those areas may be unihabitable, but terraforming Earth, irrigating deserts, draining swamps, that sort of thing, is going to be so much easier, so much cheaper, so much quicker, so much more successful than trying to terraform Mars or any moons of Jupiter or Saturn, where sunlight, the ultimate source of all our energy, is deficit and more deficit the further you get from the Sun.

Seriously, this is the worst planet ever, except for all the others.

Comment: Re:faster than light never violates Relativity (Score 5, Interesting) 226 226

You're at a very straight, very long beach. Imagine parallel waves striking the shore at a vanishingly slight angle. The point that the wave meets the shore moves along as the intersection of wave and beach occurs. As the waves get closer and closer to parallel with the beach, but not quite parallel, eventually that intersection point will be moving much faster than c.

But the interesection point between waves and shore doesn't have mass, isn't really a "thing" that's moving.

Comment: Re:faster than light never violates Relativity (Score 4, Informative) 226 226

Relativity requires that nothing can move through space faster than light.

Relativity requres that nothing can move through space as fast as light (c). Nothing with mass moving slower than c can reach c by moving faster, due to increase in mass and infinite energy required to reach c, and nothing moving faster than light can slow down to c, for the same reasons. The quote from teh article is at best misleading and at worst, false.

Comment: Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... (Score 1) 119 119

Maybe you're right. Hey, did you see this?. For all we know, the reasonable budgets of a national space program with a Moon mission are a bargain for the new technology this mission might discover, and someday provide to prevent mass population die-offs due to poverty. But I really doubt it and I can't agree. India's space program is a bad idea considering they have such severe national problems. If the US in the 1960's was half as bad as India is today, the Moon missions would probably not have happened, even if Russia's program was putting pressure on US dominating races to every possible technical achievement. First feed your kids, istartedi... THEN you can go to the Moon.

Comment: Re:You know what would REALLY motivate kids? (Score 1) 208 208

You are clinging to your misconception about what CS is by arguing something entirely new: there are no CS "jobs." You are mistaken, btw. And what we are talking about is not a negligible chunk of change, as outside academia the starting salary of a B.S. computer scientist with zero experience is close to $70-80K these days, while I think you know any software developer graduating with any degree with zero experience won't touch that. Your ignorance of any positions for an actual, bone fide "computer scientist" is not a good foundation to argue from, IMO.

My point really simply was (sorry for the feigned ignorance) that maybe the Clinton Foundation, certainly Slashdot editors, and obviously you, mistakenly believe that the purpose of "Computer Science" in society in practice, is to fill the jobs for software developers. This is absurd on its face, and your academia-vs-real-world strawman does not change this.

Please refrain from limiting computer scientists to the labor of developers. All developers can do is code. Computer scientists have a much larger bag.

Comment: Re:Amazing (Score 1) 208 208

they're going for more people being able to understand CS and possibly do CS

Do you really think that not teaching a subject to kids will get more of them to learn it?

I truly believe they have misnamed the subject in question, and couldn't possibly be talking about CS, but perhaps skills, incidentally related, often attributed to CS incorrectly. IT WOULD BE AWESOME if some CS got into lower education. It shouldn't be expensive... no PCs necessary. But symbolic logic corses would be just as useful. Again, I don't think this is their (Clinton Foundation's) intention, but (perhaps slashdot editors) are misusing CS to mean either programming or confident graphic interface operation and document creation, or both. It is maddening the damage Slashdot has done to Computer Science, relegating it to "the stuff you can do with computers," instead of what it is, the science of computating.

Comment: Re:You know what would REALLY motivate kids? (Score 0) 208 208

Why would a CS grad want to be a software developer? That doesn't make any sense. They should have studied software development and programming. That's like an MD hoping to get a job as a medical tech... a noble profession, but the MD can earn much more, be more fulfilled properly applying their education as a doctor, and the same is true of a CS grad. Their ideal employment will have little to do with coding.

Headline is wrong... should not be "Lack of CS Savvy" but "Lack of COMPUTER Savvy." Once again, Computer Science has been misunderstood and its title abused by those that cannot understand... computer science IS a science... and it has hardly anything to do with computers... the "computer" in computer science is NOT A DIGITAL MACHINE, per se, but one who computes... it is the science of reckoning, not the science of (or application of) advanced programming techniques.

Comment: Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... (Score 1, Offtopic) 119 119

I'm surprised that India waited this long to ditch those pompous morons.

I'm surprised, too, but not by that. Well, thinking positively, I hope India can get off the ground and get to the Moon and can there find safe drinking water, sanitation, housing, health infrastructure as well as something to reduce the malnutrition for the hundreds of millions in their country that find they are still in very short supply.

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman

Working...