Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... (Score 1) 118

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) 180

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) 180

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 1) 180

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) 118

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.

Comment: Re:call me skeptical (Score 2) 190

Agreed. I control all commercial flights with an Atari joystick from 1982 that I customized to be on the same frequency as the InFlight entertainment system of all commercial aircraft. So this researcher is a fraud, or the FBI is lying. I know, because its me. I'm doing all the flying. Now... all I need to do is get the FBI to repeat this, then everyone will start asking "how does he do it?" without asking "why would anyone believe something so nutty?"

Comment: Re:This again? (Score 1) 480

by catmistake (#49618913) Attached to: New Test Supports NASA's Controversial EM Drive

I think it's likely that the test is faulty, but they need to figure out why or how the test is faulty.

There is actually a better chance that curiosity, need, whatever, will continue to drive development of practical technology without science having uncovered the secrets of how it achieves its practice until long after its wide adoption. You may have heard of boat building, which our species invented here on Earth a long time ago and long, long before anyone realized what water really was and why things sink or float. NASA is one of the few organizations that justifiably has been long prided by I think everyone to be a group of ideally dedicated smart likeably cooperative over-achievers that successfully apply science rationally to develop technology to achieve the goals set before them. If you had the capital and need to do so, who would you hire to get you safely there and back if "there" was Earth's orbit or beyond? NASA's on everyone's short list. I'm interested because this is pretty good nerd news, and not any weekly world tripe, that some scientists with merit have (with transparency and established process) produced eye-popping results in an experiment and with an apparatus that does not share the secret of its result in any obvious way, IOW, wtf, that's impossible... what gives? I can't just hand-wave off that obviously one of these bozos messed up... it's NASA, they really can't afford bozos... just the regular type of professional scientists and engineers that excelled in such a way professionally to interest NASA into hiring them, and they're neither a dime a dozen nor are there very many dozens of them to begin with... considering... Merica... today... a little soft in the middle, but some of our agencies and facilities are still intact. NASA is one of them, and very much alive... everyone, everyone, should just fucking send NASA $10, you know they won't steal it, they'll actually use it to complete their mission. The first thing I'd doubt before doubting NASA was the fidelity of the information between reports and what NASA really did and said. So you can bet that somehow NASA did a faulty test, while I can bet that somehow between you me, the editer, reporter and the laws of physics something might have slid a little and a small error, in comprehension or reporting, whatever it was... a small error has turned into something now widely reported. Or maybe there is no error... something really great is happening and our best guys don't know why but they're sure the best guys we have to mess around with this and develop if it indeed is doing what they're reporting... even if it reads like a practical joke, I don't really care, its so much better news than... you know all the other crappy news... crime... war... etc...

Comment: Re:Same Thing Almost Happened to Me (Score 2) 536

If wired broadband internet is a critical feature of any house you buy, verify before you buy.

What verification steps can you possibly take beyond what he did? Hack into their computers to determine if there really had been service at that address?

Obviously, all that is necessary is to order the service, rather than fruitlessly engaging in this ridiculous "verification" ritual. Schedule the damn install, and see what happens. If they show up, you can reschedule. If they don't, don't buy the house.

Comment: Re:solar and wind are just proxies for natural gas (Score 1) 437

The math is very clear. What isn't clear to you is the history of nuclear power. The only reason the US invested so much in nuclear power in the 1950s is because someone massively overestimated the need for fuel for bombs. A single plant could have produced enough fuel for nuclear weapons, yet we built 110 or so of them. It really isn't fair to ask why solar hasn't quiet yet overtaken nuclear because of the massive investment in nuclear from 1940-1970. Had a fraction of the capital invested in nuclear been diverted to solar R&D in the 1950's, you better believe solar would be everywhere you could imagine now, and cheaper than spit. Only since the call for alternative energies has commercial interests taken up development of solar power. In the last 10 years alone, there have been massive advances in solar manufacturing processes and the efficiency of photovoltaics. Give it 10 more years, and nuclear will be a joke, unable to compete with solar, which is very nearly at cost of energy parity right now. Solar isn't perfect, and is no free lunch. But it is simpler, available to anyone and not just rich governments to implement, and as I said, in very short order solar generated energy will be cheaper than nuclear generated energy.

Comment: Re:solar and wind are just proxies for natural gas (Score 4, Insightful) 437

Nuclear power is the answer. I know someone is going to point out the nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power now.

Yes, waste is a concern. But the real concern is the economics of nuclear energy has never made any sense. It is outrageously expensive, and never has a nuclear power plant been able to have been built without massive capital from governments. An individual can install wind and solar and other alternative energies on a local scale. There are solvable problems involved. Eventually, the problem of energy storage will be solved. But the problem with nuclear power, which is that is the most expensive form of energy ever conceived, will never be solved. Nuclear energy proponents ignore this, but it is the only thing standing in the way of your dream of nuclear power being the solution to the world's energy needs: its just too damn expensive. Money wins every time.

Comment: Re:HOWTO (Score 1) 1081

by catmistake (#49260113) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century

and how many innocents had their lives taken by it.

This and this alone invalidates the death penalty in all circumstances, according to Blackstone's Formulation.

But it goes much deeper. Statistics prove the death penalty does not deter crime. Many have been executed, yet we still have murders and violent crime. Those who commit murder do not care about life, and thus the threat of a death penalty will not deter them from their committed acts.

Due to appeals, lawyers fees, court costs, the death penalty is far more expensive than keeping a convict in prison for life.

And the coup de gras, the death penalty is overwhelmingly biased towards killing black men, many whom have been shown to be innocent after it was carried out... the stats don't lie, the death penalty is racist.

If only those voting for the political Right would put their economic interests first, there would be no GOP, no nanny/police state, no unregulated out-of-control capitalist interests destroying our planet, and no inneffective, expensive, and racist death penalty.

: is not an identifier