Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:"Not illegal" is not the same as "you can do th (Score 4, Funny) 100

by fermion (#48951381) Attached to: The NFL Wants You To Think These Things Are Illegal
Not only can they sue you,they might win.

This is because the NFL is not an ordinary business. It is a cartel of independent teams. Such cartels, for example OPEC, are illigal in the US since 1890 but is allowed through special acts of congress. This allows it to set rules for all teams, set TV contracts, and set pay scales without any competition.

This leads to the ability to generate profits only available to socialist organizations. For instance, excessively high payment from TV networks require excessively high fees to cable providers which are paid by all cable subscribers, even if they never watch the channel. The cartel is also able to leverage national monies to convince localities to force taxpayer to fund stadiums, even if those that are never going to use the stadiums. These monies then go into individual pockets as profits.

I have heard people saying the same about music halls, but there is certainly no national cartel of music lovers that bribe local officials, that transfers the risk of the building from a for profit organization the taxpayer.

There are other costs to society. Because the rules are set, public tax dollars can be used to train kids for the NFL through public school funds. Because salaries are set, the players, though well paid, do not have the ability to truly negotiate a contract. Recall that tech firms have gotten in trouble for this, even though the employees were generally well paid.

And of course there is a fundamental loss to a society that depends on the free market that kids are taught about fair play and rules within a socialist construct where there is in fact a rule book and powerful referees. While this is useful for a 10 year old, it is disastrous when an adult goes into a work place believing her or his life is really going to be controlled by a rule book. It kills innovation and creativity. At leas in baseball you can steal a base. The immaturity of football can be characterized by the fact that everyone got their panties in bunch over deflate gate. In the real free market world that would just be considered a necessary cost of doing business.

Which is to say that the NFL basically lives within it's own bubble. It has the ability to bribe congress, or throw enough lawyers at the problem, to bend the rules no matter what previous legislation or case law says.

And I don't think the NFL is a natural cartel, like the electric company. I think real competition, not the fake thing taught to kids by the NFL structure and games, is good. I don't think sports fans are nearly as dumb as the average sports cartel thinks they are. The current structure is merely a way to maximize profit at taxpayer expense, and to create a world where fundamental rights are infringed for the sake of the bottom line or a corporation.

Comment: Re:I love how it is pushed (Score 2) 416

by MillionthMonkey (#48945345) Attached to: Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

I cant believe people still believe that paying a carbon tax is going to do anything but make a few people richer and everyone else poorer.

What? Who are these few people who are going to get rich off a carbon tax?

There is no attention paid to space weather trends

There has been a lot of attention given to space weather, like solar dynamics. So far there has been no evidence that space weather is having warming effects. That doesn't mean that nobody has been looking. People have, especially in the energy industry, and so far what little evidence there is actually points in the opposite direction.

or the use of a carbon tax to fund a corporate policy boards that will act as a defacto world government with an agenda that is not friendly to individual rights.

I've heard this point made a lot- we can't reduce CO2 because that means a one-world government would take my guns away and force me to be an atheist, or something.

Proponents don't seem to notice that there are weather manipulation programs in place right now.

Have any reference to that other than geoengineeringwatch? Scientists do talk about that as a possible idea but so far it remains speculative, and nobody is actually trying it. Those jet trails you see over your house are from carrying passengers. Sulfuric acid just doesn't have the money to afford the ticket prices.

How is screwing up natural weather by spraying compounds into the atmosphere and shooting it with radiation just dandy but using any petroleum product is killing the earth?

(If anyone got confused by that, the "compounds" he's talking about are sulfur aerosols, not CO2.) To my knowledge the idea strikes everyone as fanciful and distasteful; it only gets discussed as a possible last ditch, desperate option. Cities would have to be pretty flooded before anyone would actually seriously consider doing that. The main argument in its favor is that one ton of sulfuric acid would be potent enough to offset the warming of about 100000 tons of CO2. That's about all that can be said for it. (FWIW, CO2 is also an acidic gas, and obviously it also "shoots the atmosphere with radiation".)

All of you Al Gore subscribers pay honor to the creation but not the creator.

The Senate just voted 98 to 1 that the climate is changing, but refused to vote on whether humans were in any way responsible. I think that if anything qualifies as "paying honor to the creation but not the creator".

You are looking for your keys under the streetlamp instead of where you lost them because the light is better there.

I think that's because we can see them under the streetlamp- if we're the type who even bothers to look at all.

I love how the lefties always say global warming is ruining everything and it is not up for debate and that 100% of scientists agree.

IIRC it's 97%, not 100%. But that's still a really good consensus for a scientific theory, especially given the financial incentives for scientists to dissent.

The planet will gain it's equilibrium back with or without your participation if it needs to.

That's definitely true- a typical CO2 molecule remains airborne for about 10,000 years before being reabsorbed. in several million years the planet will have forgotten about us, except for any mass extinction event that we might have triggered- similar to what happened during the Carboniferous period, when today's fossil fuels were actually fossilized.

The NOAA all stars could not even predict the New York blizzard accurately. Why do you think they know what the climate is going to be like in 25 years?

Rush Limbaugh said this the day after the storm. Weathermen and climatologists aren't actually the same people. In fact most of the "skeptical scientists" that appear on TV to deny climate change are actually weathermen. But even if a weatherman can't tell you whether it's going to be warmer next week than today, he can predict with good confidence that exactly six months from now it's going to be warmer than today was. You're demanding a perfect weather forecast over every possible timescale before you'll even pull your fingers out of your ears.

You sure feel smart being ugly to people that you deem as doing something wrong. It is gross how satisfied lefties feel when they get to be ugly to others. It seems to be their most favorite game. They invent reasons why others are stupid and tell each other how smart they are when they all repeat the same things. It sounds like evil chickens squawking. Just noise for the sake of the people making it.

Actually, climatologists are pretty irritated that they can't talk about their science in public without the discussions instantly getting mobbed by Rush Limbaugh fans. I see these articles and I figure, there might be actual scientists posting intelligent things in there somewhere, but I'm never going to find them through all this crud.

Did you ever think that the big push for the climate controversy may have others agendas in the payload? Did you ever consider that some of the people steering it admit this? Did you ever consider the conflict of interest that occurs when the pushers stand to make trillions if they can get the carbon tax policy in place?

I've heard a lot about scientists who are supposedly scamming the government with a giant hoax so they can get piddling NSF grants, but this is the first I've heard about wannabe trillionaires.

Comment: Re:Depends on the age. (Score 1) 169

by fermion (#48945127) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Do I Engage 5th-8th Graders In Computing?
There is truth to this. There is a great deal of difference between a 10 year old and a 13 year old, and way more differences within children of the same age than if you were to be dealing with late teens.

This age group is going to be deep into concrete thinking. They are going to spend most of their time challenging rules rather than working with them to develop a functional product. They want to see how rules can be broken and if the framework is still functional with broken rules. They are looking for a minimum set of constraints that will lead to maximizing the freedoms they are looking for, without additional responsibilities.

These are all useful things if channeled properly.

For instance, while I don't see robots as useful for higher grade levels, I think they are useful for the 10-14 year old. Robots can provide instant feedback that forces kids to follow rules, and allows the give and take that lets kids discover principles, like how to make a right turn. Robots can also easily be tailored for individual abilities.

What is missing in many courses is that kids learn differently for older teens and adults. The assumptions they make are different, and they are more likely to spend time 'gaming the system' to look for vagaries.

What kids don't have is the abstract ability to understand how something as abstract as a physical computer interface works. Even though it looks like a concrete representation, it is not. Just try to teach a kid to work a breadboard. Yes, you can teach them rote but are they going to understand what is really happening. My experience is not until they are in high school.

So teach cause and effect. If they are old enough teach them how to solder. Get simple robots and let them play. For older students, get Inventor and 3D printer. If a kid seems to want to program, let them make a tic tac toe web page.

What will happen is that some kids will try spend more time on the internet looking at porn than learning. That is the testing of rules thing.

Comment: Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score 1) 416

by MillionthMonkey (#48945013) Attached to: Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

I can't afford $30K a year in gas tax or a Tesla. Most people can't.

But some people can. Then Tesla can get more business, they can come out with better and cheaper cars, other companies will be incentivized to sell similar cars, and someday your car will work that way too.

Say what you want about pencil pushers, they can usually do math. Most households pay about $3000 on gas per year. If you're worrying about paying $30K a year on gas taxes, that's some pretty serious driving.

Comment: Re:Imagine $100,000,000,000 for cancer research (Score 1) 416

by MillionthMonkey (#48944929) Attached to: Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

How many millions of people have died because you'd rather play hippy than deal with the issues that are actually killing millions of people every year? Well, about 10 million people every year, the math shows.

We're talking about a problem that isn't causing us difficulties in the short term but threatens to be a long term disaster. Cancer, traffic deaths, child abuse, teen smoking, alcoholism, disease, etc. are all problems in the short term as well as the long term, which is why we address them. That doesn't mean that specifically long term problems aren't worth addressing at all, especially if they need to be dealt with in the short term by their very nature. It's like saying "my kid is hungry today, I can't afford to vaccinate him- so I'll just wait until he actually gets the measles".

Comment: Re:as requested (Score 1) 416

by MillionthMonkey (#48944851) Attached to: Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

The world would be down right exactly the same as it is now if Al Gore hadn't made the movie.

Except for the fact that a majority of conservatives get offended by the topic simply because it was introduced to them by people they don't like. Seriously, I think he did a disservice to the environment just by getting himself associated with it.

And there is absolutely no proof otherwise.

<fail type="ad_hominem" class="projection">This is what is wrong with you extreme alarmists. Exaggeration as a talking point. FEAR FEAR FEAR. Honestly, you are down right dishonest.</fail>

Ow! That hurt!

Comment: Re:as requested (Score 1) 416

by MillionthMonkey (#48944741) Attached to: Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

If you want to understand why rising CO2 is a problem, try to imagine for a second what the world might be like if Al Gore hadn't made a movie about it.

It really sounds laughably desperate when the arguments have devolved to "So-and-so failed to predict the weather 30 years ago". Scientists over the years have come out with lowball estimates too, but those usually don't appear on paste sites.

Comment: Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score 1, Insightful) 416

by MillionthMonkey (#48944709) Attached to: Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

This argument again? I'm so sick of having to explain why "Don't feed the bears" != "Don't feed the poor". If you feed bears, they'll learn to nag you and other people for food. If you feed the poor, they'll also learn to nag for the food, but there are good reasons why you'd maybe want a hungry poor person to ask you for food instead of having a bear ask.

Anyway, regardless of how they feel about bears, conservatives certainly don't like wolves.

Comment: Re:Bubbles in Bloodstream is Dangerous (Score 4, Interesting) 15

You get the bends from high levels of nitrogen dissolved in blood plasma under pressure. If you move to low pressure regions near the water's surface too fast, the nitrogen is able to separate out into bubbles that get stuck in tissues and blood vessels.

These things are "round" like gas bubbles, but they're more like some sort of fake dummy cells, with a fluid interior surrounded by something that looks like a lipid bilayer made of soap-like molecules that bind together by van der Waals forces and have charged tips that interface with the surrounding water. There is no gas.

It's a badly written article- "oooh bubbles!" People should try not to write stupid shit like this, especially about vaccines. I'm already blue in the face screaming at thick skulled idiots on #CDCwhistleblowers who post crap about how vaccines cause autism because Big Pharma stuffs them with disgusting crap like dihydrogen monoxide.

Comment: Re:Does It Matter? (Score 1) 273

by fermion (#48940923) Attached to: VirtualBox Development At a Standstill
I paid for virtual machine software for the Mac to run Windows XP and 7. I did not want to reboot. I switched to virtual box not because it was free, but because I felt it was better. I have not needed to run windows for a couple years, so I do not know what the current state of development is in the market, but VirtualBox would be my initial choice if I needed a VM. One data point. For the modeling software I was using on Windows 7, Parallels made my machine run much hotter.

If you are good, you will be assigned all the work. If you are real good, you will get out of it.