Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Must be an american thing ??? (Score 1) 8

by damn_registrars (#47918761) Attached to: More unsurprisingly conservative ads on slashdot
It could well be an American thing. Frankly I would expect that if anyone from any other country (sans perhaps Afghanistan or Somalia) saw ads for American politicians and knew what they actually stand for, they would go running far, far, away from this site.

On a different note, slashdot won't let me add you to my friends list yet. I see you put me on yours but the option does not exist for me to reciprocate. It doesn't seem to be a case of having too many friends, as I can get to that for other users, so I presume it is because your new account is so new?
User Journal

Journal: More unsurprisingly conservative ads on slashdot 8

Journal by damn_registrars
I had a little bit of downtime yesterday afternoon with my phone in my hand and decided to see how awful slashdot is with the default browser on Android. It is - as one might expect - rather bad. More so, the front page actually had conservative advertisements on the page (beyond the usual collection of conservative stories). The first ad was touting Paul Ryan being scheduled to appear at a conference about medicare and medicaid. Being as I was not logged in to slashdot through my phone at a

Comment: Not familiar with NIH funding, then? (Score 3, Informative) 171

by damn_registrars (#47914651) Attached to: Sci-Fi Authors and Scientists Predict an Optimistic Future
The National Institutes of Health are one of (or perhaps the, depending on whom you ask) largest funding sources for research from the federal government. I know many people who have reviewed grant applications there, and they would be rather astonished to see

Roboticist Srikanth Saripalli makes this interesting point: "If the government has to decide what to fund and what not to fund, they are going to get their ideas and decisions mostly from science fiction rather than what's being published in technical papers."

Because at NIH indeed you are placed on a grant review board because of your techical knowledge of the matter. On top of that, the applications are all supported by citations in technical (and peer-reviewed) papers.

As best I understand funding at DOE and NSF works much the same way; your odds of getting funded are astronomically better if you have good primary literature to support the experiment you propose. Now, if your funding plans revolve around convincing your favorite congress-critter to write in a line (or a full bill) to get you some money, that might work too but it generally isn't the most reliable way to establish a career path.

Comment: Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more! (Score 1) 863

by damn_registrars (#47914619) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

The bigger failure, from my vantage point, is that people who call themselves "atheists" today often have faith in there not being a god.

A circular argument.

No, for the argument that I presented later in the same post. The problem I have is the modern hijacking of the term atheist.

All the word smitihng doesn't convince me that there can be faith in "nothing" if a person is inclined to be an atheist.

If one declares there to be no god, they are making a statement of faith. It is of the same magnitude - though opposite orientation - as one made by someone declaring there to be a god.

Similarly, the classic definition of agnostic was a "doubter", one who questioned the existence of a deity. Then some of the "atheists" took on a faith of their own and pushed the classical atheists out in search of a new term to describe their standing.

Having faith that things I've never heard of that don't exist just seems like dividing by zero.

Perhaps I wasn't clear on this matter. My point is that people who specifically state a belief in there not being a particular (generally Abrahamic) god are calling themselves atheists when they are showing faith in that very statement. Similarly by the way that the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" have been redefined in modern times, one could reasonably describe any random person to likely be agnostic towards a deity that they have never heard of (unless they specifically subscribe to the existence of a different one in a way that prevents them from accepting any other).

Comment: Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more! (Score 1) 863

by damn_registrars (#47909479) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

Do athiests go on missions from their atheist church to convert people - to nothing?

You've nearly hit the nail on the head, there - though I suspect perhaps not in the way you had intended. A lot of people who embrace the term "atheist" today do go and try to convert people. This in reality means that they are not atheists in the classic definition of the word as they are expressing a faith and a drive for that faith.

The bigger failure, from my vantage point, is that people who call themselves "atheists" today often have faith in there not being a god. At that point they are not truly atheists as the term means "without faith". They have instead hijacked the term to now mean "anyone who believes there to not be a god"; indeed it takes just as much faith to believe there to not be a god as it does to believe there to be one.

This is why while I am classically an atheist, I use the term agnostic to describe myself in the modern world.

Comment: Re:For some, no other usable choice (Score 1) 21

by damn_registrars (#47908837) Attached to: More Than Enough - Comcast declares war on Tor

And who are the anti-capitalist-empire candidates, pray tell?

They're out there. You don't think Senator Bernie Sanders being invited for the first time to Meet the Press this weekend after 24 years in the Senate doesn't make the Koch Brothers' assholes pucker a little bit?

I am about as big of a fan of Bernie Sanders as any person you will ever find (particularly hanging out in a conservative echo chamber like slashdot). However I am also enough of a realist to know that

  • He will never run for president
    • and
  • His ideas for dismantling the for-profit stranglehold on our federal government will never gain any traction during my lifetime (unless our country finally calls it enough and splits into two or more independent nations).

How funny would a Bernie Sanders/Rand Paul contest be?

I would love to see Bernie Sanders take on the cult leader's son in a debate. Sanders would completely dismantle him.

You'd have certain people throwing themselves out windows.

Mostly just the lobbyists who have been busy buying up democrats. But we don't need them anyways.

User Journal

Journal: Conservative mindfuck 2

Journal by damn_registrars
The situation in Ukraine should be causing conservatives to collectively blow their gaskets, except that most of them discarded logic long ago. Let's examine their beliefs on the matter. Many conservatives believe:
  • That Obama is a communist (which is obviously wrong)
  • That Marxist communism was the dominant philosophy for most of the existence of the USSR (also obviously wrong)
  • That communism and fascism are in any meaningful way similar philosophically (also obviously w

Comment: Re:For some, no other usable choice (Score 1) 21

by damn_registrars (#47905391) Attached to: More Than Enough - Comcast declares war on Tor

the morons and idiots who reelect the politicians that make all this happen have only themselves to blame

And who are the anti-capitalist-empire candidates, pray tell? I haven't seen any. The empire is simply too strong for anyone to mount a resistance at the ballot box. Voting for Mickey Mouse doesn't accomplish anything either.

Comment: Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 4, Insightful) 324

For certain very lucky values of "safely", sure. Taking your eyes completely off the road to do something is, quite simply, never a good idea.

Nonesense. You take your eyes off the road all the time in order to specifically drive safely. You take your eyes off the road when you check your speedometer, tack, warning gauges, mirrors, to read road signs and look for crossing traffic, and so on as a function of driving safely.

Every one of those functions take less time than writing a text message. Furthermore all those functions are designed to be easy and safe to do while driving. Text messaging was never designed with that in mind.

Comment: Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 2) 324

Is it against the law almost everywhere?

I really only know about locally... The only place here it is illegal is in school zones.. otherwise, talk and text away while driving...

Texting while driving in most places can be classified as distracted driving. It doesn't need a special classification; if you were reading the newspaper while driving you could be pulled over and fined for that, texting is often handled the same way.

Some places have additional statutes and fines on the matter, but that is just to try to raise awareness - or revenue.

"Once they go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department." -- Werner von Braun

Working...