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


Forgot your password?

Comment Convenient + clean (Score 1) 472

It's a resealable glass of clean water that you can buy anywhere and carry in your pocket.

Saying "it makes no sense whatsoever to buy bottled water... For people who live in first-world countries with proper sanitation and water treatment"...
It is like saying the same thing about cloth handkerchiefs vs. paper tissues or paper towels vs. cloth towels.

With proper sanitation - why not just wash your ass and use a cloth towel afterwards instead of toilet paper?
You can take it with you everywhere, in a small plastic box.
And if a toilet has no bidet attachment, just use that bottled water to wash your ass.

I'm only half joking here. It is all perfectly doable. Have done it on camping and such.
Apart from carrying a towel with me. No, I don't hitchhike.
But doing all that to avoid toilet paper or paper tissues would be rather inconvenient on a regular basis.
Same as having MY dedicated 20$ aluminum-whatever-alloy water bottle I'd keep forgetting, losing or lugging around when I don't need or don't want to be lugging it around (i.e. when I need my hands or pockets free or busy with something else).

I've refilled my store-bought water bottle with local tap water IF it was good (where I live it really isn't) but then I'd just dump the bottle in the trash when I don't need it anymore.
Convenience. Of use and disposal. Plus a guaranteed clean source of drinkable water.
Available at every news stand kiosk.

Comment Re:Because 2016 elections... (Score 4, Insightful) 299

A presidential candidate's demonstrated incompetence in a leadership position is "stuff that matters". So is major corporate executive's, since it helps dispell the lingering idea that leaders get paid more than underlings because they're worth more, rather than just more powerful. The remains of the myth of the divinely appointed kings are hindering our democracies by making the decision-making positions extremely attractive to psychopaths, narcissists and people with other mental issues, and need to die.

One - incompetence has NEVER stopped anyone getting elected.
Nobody cares about incompetence. Neither the people at the voting booth NOR the people in the party pushing that person for office.
People care about "Is he/she like me?". Can they identify with the candidate and his/her ideas or in other words - do they LIKE the candidate.
It's a popularity contest.

Just a while ago US had an incompetent lunatic with a history of substance abuse problem who believes he talks to god, with god giving him instructions on how to run the country - running the country and starting decades long wars.
Remember that time when an undiagnosed Alzheimer's patient ran a country, with plans to "win" a nuclear war with USSR by using "lazors"?
Remember that airhead from Alaska being and actual presidential candidate?
Remember that other guy being "a robot" and "not cool" to be president?
Remember that certain senator from Kansas being "too old"?

It's a popularity contest. People vote for whom they like more based on their public image.
Hint: A sex scandal does not mean someone is incompetent at their job - except in politics.
People don't care about competence. If they did, there'd be a test and an "experience in office" requirement for political positions.
You know... something to show that a politician actually knows how government works.
Imagine THAT crazy thing - politicians with actual governing GRADES and stats.

Instead, elections are about the ability to pretend to be everything to everyone.
Which is what's "making the decision-making positions extremely attractive to psychopaths, narcissists and people with other mental issues" - not a myth of divine kings.

Thus, elections being a popularity contest...
"Jobs fucked Fiorina" is irrelevant historical information (over a decade old) which, were elections about competence, would actually indicate more that she was a high stakes player who once lost to Divine Steve.
But it's not.
It's a cheap, "dirty laundry" attempt at painting old news as relevant in order to affect someone's popularity by labeling them as "totally tricked" and "outsmarted" instead of what they are - incompetent at running a company.

Which might actually mean that she has great chances - in politics.
After all... People loved that other MBA who kept ruining businesses he ran. Maybe she should get herself a baseball team?

Comment Phobos proposal is retarded... (Score 4, Interesting) 148

Also, a budget padding enthusiasts wet dream.

It suggests 3 (three) separate trips for what can be achieved by 1 (one). Namely, getting astronauts to Mars surface for a prolonged stay and an extensive scientific mission.

First, send astronauts to hop around on Phobos in 2033.
Then, send astronauts to land on Mars in 2039 - and fuck off back to Earth almost immediately.
Then, in 2043, send astronauts for a year-long stay on Mars.

Supposedly, (paper is paywalled) "each mission campaign would build on previous campaigns, leaving a legacy and new capabilities for those that follow."

Except the cost of all three missions is in getting to Mars orbit and back.
And if the last mission is supposed to last a whole year on Mars, a full DECADE after the first mission, and 4 years after the second one - they are NOT carrying ANY supplies or building ANY infrastructure on or near Mars surface.
For a simple reason that you can't rely on anything still being there in working order 10 years in the future.
Or 6. Or 4.
You can't even use the SAME FUCKING PEOPLE as they will be a decade older and maybe dead or maybe doing another job.
Astronauts have to eat too, you know.

Further, anything done on Phobos has fuck all to do with any following mission. They are not gonna build a base there or store supplies - it's a hop-around mission.
And should a second mission happen, only reason why not to stay there for a whole year is - SUPPLIES! Or the lack there of.
Which won't be there because... "Meh... not this time. We'll bring it the next time. Not right now. Later."

This is NOTHING like an Apollo missions to the Moon.
This is like swimming to America from Scotland, getting to Liberty Island, eating a sandwich brought with you, then swimming back home.
Then, 6 years later, do the same thing - only climbing out of the water in New York Harbor, sleeping over night in Central Park, eating another sandwich in the morning (again brought from back home) and swimming back to Europe.
THEN, 4 more years later, you take another swim across the ocean, only instead of taking a sandwich, this time you take a credit card and you spend a year living in USA.

Oh and yeah... Each trip there is a team of thousands of people and dozens of boats sailing right next to you and keeping you safe from the sharks and tigers (You don't know... maybe there are tigers along the way... better safe than sorry.), tweetering your progress online and whatnot.

Comment Moms. (Score 1) 321

I'm guessing they don't just use that filter all the time because they don't want to wear out a (presumably) much more expensive filter?

Moms with kids diagnosed (or more likely presumed to be) asthmatic or allergic.
Followed by various adults diagnosed (or presumed to be) asthmatic or allergic, buying the car for themselves.

In both those cases that filter will be a major deciding factor for purchase and a much used feature.
Screw the doors. That "most ridiculous feature" will sell thousands of cars all on its own.
Hypochondria is a real thing. Particularly among the OCD-hand-washing crowd.

Comment No 13... (Score 1) 466

people will trot out Rosa Parks as an example. Funny, I never see them trot out Pablo Escobar or MS13.

This is Slashdot.

There's no 13 and MS is spelled M$. Tagged with a "Billgatus of Borg" icon.
In a story about M$ "just practicing civil disobedience". You know... like Mussolini.

HA! You thought I was gonna say Hitler.

Comment Lovely flamebait in summary... (Score 4, Interesting) 466

and fresh allegations that the company would act as a "criminal organization" by offering a platform for taxi rides without license (read: without the authorities earning money from the practice)

Nice one there.

Get the anti-gubermint crowd by emphasizing the criminal organization definition of Uber.
(YEAH! Fuck you Holland and your German laws! You don't get to decide what constitutes a legal definition of a criminal organization in your country!).

Then get the pro-regulation crowd by insinuating that paying taxes, tariffs etc. and submitting to regulation is somehow just a legal racket by "the authorities".
(YEAH! Fuck you regulatory gubermint bodies! I WANT to live in a Blade Runner-like dystopia. Minus the tech, replicants, flying cars, Vangelis soundtrack and unicorns.)

It's almost as if both the "anonymous reader" and Soulskill love watching their mom being double-teamed so much they just can't get the idea of getting it both ways out of their head.
What? It's a flamebait story and topic.
Decorum and protocol dictate the mention of management's and submitters Nazi whore mothers.

Comment WOOSH! (Score 1) 55

You missed the point completely. Reread what I said.

Poster used to promote movie is without any kind of emotional or factual or logical information.
And what IS there - is contradictory or meaningless.

"Bring him home."

Bring who home? Why? From where? Whose home? What for? Is this a commercial for something? For what?
Who is this emotionless, expressionless guy and why should I care? Is he an actor? A historical figure?
Is he real? A robot? What is he selling? Is he the product? Who? What? How? Where? When? Why? WHY? WHY?

I am not a character in the movie. I'm audience. The guy in the poster is NOT Mark Whatever - it's an actor called Matt Damon.
That poster is supposed to be informing ME about the movie and establishing SOME connection, usually emotional, with me to induce me to pay for the ticket.
Without me knowing jack shit about the story.
And there is NOTHING THERE to do that.
All that's there is an ACTOR looking bored or retarded, with meaningless words across his face.

Damon is capable of expressing emotion. Humans ARE capable of writing better slogans or even sentences.
That thing was intentionally made that way cause it made PERFECT logic to people already engrossed with the production - but with nothing there for people who are supposed to pay for that movie.
That's a symptom of detachment from reality.

They are running the production of the story on their own, internal logic which makes sense only to them because they are engrossed in metadata and metalogic of the project - which they've clearly omitted to relay to the audience.
This is the stuff that creates movies like Prometheus and The Room.
Both those movies made perfect sense to the people who made them and OKayed them.

And seriously, if you answer to "Why?" with "Semper Fi!"... you might need to recheck your bullshit meter.

Comment It makes me cringe. (Score 1) 55

I've only read fragments of the book and seen the trailer.
But the writing... Your 15-year-old boy writer may be having some development issues.
E.g. That bit about "space pirate"... that's just... retarded.
I get the context, really I do. And I'm not even gonna go into the whole "The Egg" thing.

But a grown human acting like that in that situation would NOT be in that situation cause that human would not pass the psych tests.
Besides that... It is twaddle that serves no other purpose but to make the character out as a "funny guy" and as an attempt at fan service.

Except, if he's talking to himself about how either awesome or charming and funny he is, he is NOT a funny guy.
He is either insane, or one of them assholes full of themselves who THINK that they are awesome and funny.
And the whole thing REEKS of MarySueism.

Which carries over to the movie to the point that someone thought how that face shot of Damon looking emotionless or vaguely retarded, with "BRING HIM HOME" printed across his face - someone thought that was a GREAT idea for a movie poster.

Seriously, WHY? Why "bring him home"? Who gives a fuck about him? Why should anyone care about bringing HIM home at this point?
There's no attachment for the audience to that character. Emotional or otherwise.
Poster tells NOTHING about that character. It goes out of its way to say nothing with that face expression of his, or the lack thereof.
Unless the idea is that we should "bring him home" because "Matt Damon"?
And that's just... stupid. Like cheering when Amon Goeth murders Jews because "OMG! Ralph Fiennes is SO FIIIINEEEES!"

Why should someone who hasn't read a book or seen the movie care about bringing that mongoloid home?

Another thing this reeks of is "Mythbusters on Mars".
"Science the shit out of this" while looking at the audience. Yeah... That.
"Eat my shit Neil Armstrong"... or whatever he actually throws at Neil Fucking Armstrong.
"I'm the bestest plant guy on this planet, getit you idiots, its a funny, ha-ha laugh."

Comment Oh please... (Score 1, Interesting) 536

That kinda ad hominem nonsense just creates a faulty "argument" that her theories would have been more valid if she were younger and thinner.
Wind the time back and she's this nerdy chick with raven hair and pretty eyes who's into robots. How cool is that, right?

The woman is pushing 40(ish) and has excess weight.
Yeah... no one on slashdot has ever been or will ever be in those shoes. We're all fit and perma-young.
Should she lose weight and get sexier lighting, background and clothes - will her theories suddenly become more valid?
How about if she were a guy?

I know, I know... It's a joke.
But it's a lame one and it opens the door to the whole "her theory is laughed at on account of her being a woman" argument.

When the real reason it is laughable is cause it is based on a faulty premise of humans being nothing but sex-bots made of flesh and then making a bunch of logical leaps based on premises as faulty as that one.
I.e. This is some wonderful circular thinking:

The vision for sex robots is underscored by reference to prostitute-john exchange which relies on recognizing only the needs and wants of the buyers of sex, the sellers of sex are not attributed subjectivity and reduced to a thing (just like the robot).

Sex robots are like prostitutes. Which is bad. Cause prostitution treats prostitutes like robots.
Ergo, treating robots like prostitutes is bad - CAUSE THAT WOULD BE TREATING ROBOTS LIKE ROBOTS!

Comment BINGO! (Score 1) 255

How many people studied math in school?
Everyone. You can't get through elementary school without math.

How many people use anything more advanced than multiplication and division?
How many of them are actual mathematicians?

Now... How many people HATE math cause they either never had aptitude for it OR due to the way they were taught math?

Besides that... What's the use of a half the humanity of below average programmers?

Comment Re:Bowl? How many libraries of Congress is that? (Score 1) 317

Just to be clear, I am not any where close to being in the US - OR eating US portions.
I was referring to the fact that "bowl" and "portion" are not really exact measurements, just like other descriptive measurements based not so much on measurable quantities but on personal perception.
And as people do not all come in one size... that may not really mean much.

As for what I describe above, it is actually either a low calorie smaller meal for someone doing a lot of physical exercise - or a solid full meal for someone trying to game the satiety part of the equation.
All that stuff takes a while to digest and it's full of fiber.

In comparison, 100 grams of white bread (about 3 slices) is about the same amount of calories as oats+milk above - but 2 minutes later you don't even remember you ate it.

Comment Bowl? How many libraries of Congress is that? (Score 1) 317

A typical UK cereal with milk is in the 125-150 calorie range. Even the worst sugar laden ones are only about 350 calories per bowl.

I don't know the size of your bowl but 60 grams of oat flakes (that stuff in muesli) plus 80 grams of 0.5% milk is 253 calories.

No added sugar, flavor or anything.
You want extra flavor, add fruit or a couple of spoons of fruit yogurt.
At about 84 calories per 100 grams for those yogurts which don't contain extra fructose for taste.
Slice an average peach into it and that's about 40 more calories per 100 grams, or about 1 peach.
Or a banana for 90 calories per 100 grams, or about 110 calories per banana.

So, a bowl of "healthy", raw, low calorie fruit and unprocessed cereals with low fat milk is in the range of 290-370 calories, for about a 200 ml bowl.
I'm guessing that your "typical" bowl might actually be a "small" bowl and OP's bowl may be a "medium" to "large" bowl.

Comment Re:He'll siphon exactly nothing. (Score 1) 281

Are you satisfied with a system that allows each of Ted Cruz's donors to have literally 100,000 times as much "speech" as each of Lessig's donors?

I don't really give a fuck as I am not USA-ian.

Also, what the flying fuck does it matter what am * I * satisfied with or not?
Unless at least half of those ~130 million who turn up to vote in USA is interested in that same thing, I might as well start shitting in my other hand - at least it'll be warm and it will feel kinda substantial.

And if those people are (dis)satisfied - they should contact their congress-critters.
Not try to reenact Brewster's Millions.
There's no chance they'll outdo Richard Pryor AND a million dollars was a losers choices even back then.

What's your point? There's no connection between donors and voters. Only 90,000 voters make sizable ($2600) contributions to any campaign

The point is that those numbers you're showing actually make his numbers even worse.

First of all, his donations are pitiful.
Nowhere near "sizable" at an average of $120. In the game of "pay for election" he already lost.
Those Ted Cruz and Rand Paul numbers you mention. He will NEVER get those numbers. NEVER!

Then, there's the fact that since he "announced" his candidacy and got his name out there, number of his donors "skyrocketed" to 8794.
All that publicity boost got 466 people to reach for their wallets, and donate less than the previously established average.
466 out of 130 million. Not out of 90000 cause these donations too were not "sizable".
Taking donations as a measure of faith, his "supporters" show a complete lack of faith in him.

Which is not surprising, cause you don't have to be a genius to realize that his plan is not a paradox - but a delusion.

1 - He wants to fight the influence of big money on elections.
2 - Ergo, he supposedly understands that money wins elections. Or at least it influences elections by a huge enough amount that he wants to run for president (and then resign) in order to stop that.
3 - BUT - in order to achieve that, he plans to go against people who both have the money AND who like the fact that money influences elections.
4 - So, he must understand that he won't get any money, thus he will not win elections. GOTO 1.

Only way that kind of plan can make sense is if the planner is delusional.
He wants to challenge people with guns to a gunfight, where they will use real, loaded, guns and he will use a warm fart.

His big plan is to threaten politicians with an excuse to just sit on their asses and do nothing while giving daily interviews about how it is all president's fault?

And that's why we can't have any more of this giving birth to grown college professors thing.
People should be born as babies and they should be allowed to grow up slowly, so they can read books for small children.
Maybe then they'll remember that you can't punish Br'er Rabbit by throwing him in the Briar Patch.

Backed up the system lately?