Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:I hate to be THAT GUY... (Score 2) 218

Instead of bitching that it's not 100%, we should be grateful [...] suck it up, and enjoy the damned flick.

No, fuck you and fuck your mediocrity-inducing opinion-denying apologism.

If I see shit, I call it out. I am not (and GP isn't) telling anyone they are not allowed to like the movie. You on the other hand are telling me I should.
Do you understand the difference?

Some guy gives his honest and well-founded opinion on something and 'you guys' (I'm generalizing here) tell him that he can't have it, should shut up and that he should like -- nay, be grateful for! -- what he thinks is shit. Stalin would be so proud.

So again: fuck you and fuck your mediocrity-inducing opinion-denying apologism.

Comment Re:I hate to be THAT GUY... (Score 3, Interesting) 218

I want to sincerely thank you for being that guy. Your honesty and critical view is what this world is sorely lacking.

The amount of apologism for shit in ridiculous-budget movies that could easily have been done right is insane. Bullshit replies like 'you must be fun at parties' or "it's just a movie" really piss me off. They pretty much translate to "Shut up, nerd. Don't talk shit about stuff I like."
Given that this is a site with 'news for nerds', we're talking about a 'sciency' movie, and that the entire fucking point of science is to be absolutely honest, objective, thorough and accurate make it extra sad that that is what your objectivity gets you.

So again: thank you and don't let all the Hollywood-apologists ever deter you. Keep calling it like you see it! Maybe then someday, actually well and attentively written scripts will become the norm instead of the rare exception.

Comment Re:CO2 (Score 1) 88

I salute your act of retraction. It is praiseworthy.

I'm just pointing out that all that plastic lying around isn't as innocuous as everyone thinks.

I agree that putting time and effort into preventing plastic from entering our oceans is wise. I do believe we should do so in a rational way and choose the most efficient solutions for the problems. Research into bacteria that mitigate the issues is definitely one of the roads to efficient solutions. You may find this interesting:

Nature is a very versatile thing.

Comment Re:CO2 (Score 1) 88

- "The obvious answer is leave it buried in the ground."
= "Except that it doesn't stay in the ground." ...
= "I was more referring to the waste that never makes it into the ground."

That is a pretty silly sequence of sentences, don't you think?
The solution is simple: just retract your initial statement and say that it's better to leave plastic buried in landfills than convert it to CO2 until we have a better way of dealing with it. Trying to inject the effects of buried plastic on geological time scales into the discussion is also just very very silly.

Comment Re: None of my cards have a chip! (Score 2) 317

Contactless is actually superconvenient, given a limit on the maximum amount for which it works. Over here that maximum is EUR 25, which allows you to be really fast for all small purchases (which are generally the purchases where that really matters).

I would support a system where you could authorize it to work for higher amounts at certain vendors (supermarkets, for instance).

Comment Re:Group work in school (Score 1) 307

That is the most insightful comment here. Real life is going to throw all these situations at them and only training kids in the way in which they perform best is going to come back and bite them in the ass later.

Yes, working with other students can be extremely frustrating, especially if you are naturally introverted. But guess what: So can working with colleagues.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 5, Funny) 174

what about moving around people gumming up the works who are a in a win win win they keep there job or win they go to prison where the state pays for there room, broad and doctor.

Clearly they should be putting money into providing language education instead of female companions.

Comment Re:Science isn't a game (Score 1) 246

Science isn't supposed to be fun

That is not the point. No, it's not supposed to be fun. But it can be. Science can be exhilarating, heart-pounding and absolutely amazing. High-definition images from Mars, cures for debilitating diseases, allowing disabled people to walk again, nigh-infinite distributed clean energy and even uncovering the very fabric of the universe!

We probably thoroughly agree that (good) science is often also hard and arduous. Guess what: so are tons of jobs. Yet science is regarded as the stuffy shit the weird kids do. Many scientists should be regarded as heroes, furthering our society with hard work and giving us all amazing things, but the image has been destroyed by a culture of praising amateurism and expertise in pushing our most primitive and uncontrollable buttons instead of our most advanced reasoning skills.

Coming back to education, even if you currently regard science highly you probably remember that there were maybe one or two teachers, zero textbooks and a handful of 'cool' experiments that were able to convey the awesomeness that science is and brings. Everything else was dry as shit. I'm not saying other subjects were different, but most of those subjects are either inherently less abstract or have other elements in society that give them traction. One of the most heard things about 'science subjects' is "when do you ever use this shit in real life?" which immediately gives away that all the textbooks are horrifically lacking in showing kids exactly that. It's hard to do that properly, but using terribly improbable examples of trains crashing head-on into each other is certainly not the way to do it.
This guy has gone to what I regard as being an extreme, but the central message is the same and the effect apparently present:

I'm not sure whether making science 'fun' in schools is the way to increase appreciation for science, but it might help. Personally, I'd much rather see a lot of public funding put into putting proper science in a media-friendly form at various levels of complexity to get the entirety of our societies into science. People are so used to either a highly technical dry presentation of science or the extremely dumbed down sensationalized versions of it that they never have a chance (let alone be enticed) to take the next step up in their grasp of it.

I was recently reminded of the cartoon "Once upon a time.. Life" which is one of the best examples of media-friendly entertaining science presentation that is remarkably accurate and jargon-filled, for a show aimed at kids and written in the 80's:

Comment Re:Gravity (Score 1) 163

It's mediocre crap to you because you're closed-minded.

That's not how that works. Things can be objectively mediocre and that is what Gravity and Interstellar can be proven to be (outside of the special effects and amount of money involved).

Everything has to conform to your standards.

Strawman. I never said that. Movies don't have to conform to my standards, but I will judge them by my standards.

Just enjoy a film for what it is: fiction.

The stories my 10-year old nephew comes up with are also fiction. And they are also crap.
Ironically they are ultimately more enjoyable than Gravity or Interstellar, because he isn't claiming that they are scientifically accurate, nor does he have shitloads of time and money to create them.

No one has been steered away from science because of fiction.

Strawman again. I never said that. I said that your reaction is that of a culture that drives people away from science. It's the culture of responding with "don't be a dick, you know what I mean" or "shut up, nerd" when somebody corrects them in a well-meaning manner. Of apologizing for scientifically inaccurate crap because they liked the crap and thought it was fun. Imagine that high school situation. Imagine people who could go either way (science or not science) being exposed to that culture. If the culture is strong enough, those people will not choose physics. Because physics is for nerds. Just like pointing out the utter scientific crappiness that is Gravity and Interstellar apparently is for nerds.

I just need to be entertained. I'm smart enough to know what's not real, and if I'm having a good enough time, then I just don't care.

Nobody gives a fuck. This is not about how you or I feel, but about whether it is a problem to deride Gravity and Interstellar. Remember, you are the one who made this personal by telling me to 'Chill'.

Who needs profound thought from Sandra Bullock or Matthew McConaughey

What the fuck do they have to do with it? Are you saying they are unable to act out a script where there is some profundity to be found? It was definitely not top-shelf stuff, but True Detective S01 definitely shows that it's not the actor where the problem lies. Profound thought in or provoked by movies is a real thing, a rare thing and a terribly undervalued thing.

And maybe discussion about what's not real in a fictional setting will inspire someone to find out how it would really work and become a scientist/mathematician/whatever.

That is one of the weakest defenses I've ever heard. You could create an Austin Powers movie, trump up its scientific accuracy and achieve the same goal (and it would be a million times more entertaining than Gravity and Interstellar combined).

If they're bored with something like, "Well the radiation would really kill him in about three days, so he has to have layers and layers of material that will stop it, so he couldn't do anything interesting at all in this movie because he's basically wrapped up like a mummy...", then they'll be bored with science.

So you think that science is boring. Got it.
Writing a good story in a scientifically accurate setting with attention for science is nigh impossible, right? My dear friend, you could not be more wrong.
You may know the cartoon "Once upon a time ... Life". If not, please watch it:
This is a cartoon aimed at children, contains insane amounts of what most people would consider to be 'jargon', actually revolves on pretty hardcore science, was produced for pennies in the eighties, yet is actually superentertaining for hours on end, even now, even for adults. This is the stuff that piques people's interest in science.

Now think about having assloads of money, time, 21st century technology, access to insanely capable actors and then coming up with ... Gravity (and claiming it is scientifically accurate!). It is an absolute fucking disgrace.

Just go read books or watch videos about momentum and escape velocity and whatever else you feel aggrieved about in these films and you'll be much happier.

Honestly, I would have, were it not for many of my friends telling me how cool and actually scientifically decent Gravity and Interstellar were (even though I still like my friends, I have since regarded their appreciation of movies as worthless to me). Perhaps that is what fuels part of my emotion: I feel like I was suckered into spending time on shit under the pretense of it being scientifically accurate.

Comment Re:Gravity (Score 1) 163

Didn't they explain in the film that the waves come almost hourly due to the tidal forces on the planet?

Did that scene last an hour?
The timing is fairly forgivable, though. The fact that these 'scientists' weren't prepared for this very predictable phenomenon and managed to handle it in the most retardedly Hollywood way possible, endangering the mission and everybody's lives for shit is what makes it a terrible plot device: it effectively becomes a diabolus ex machina.

but I thought the ship was fine except for the power problem

.. and the fact that it was hammered and tossed around by and into insane amounts of water, semi-flooded and then managed to just blast off from a planet with gravity similar to earth's. It may actually be the epitome of unrealistic space-related scenes in existence today. The only way it could have been worse would be if they had rowed their way to escape velocity.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A guinea pig is not from Guinea but a rodent from South America.