Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I for one, (Score 1) 401 401

You forgot "female"... Your description would have been a grand slam then...

But you are right: anything should be able to be written, especially in a detached environment such as the Internet. This is not like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater: there is a physical separation at work here that will not directly affect your immediate safety from someone's "speech". However, freedom of speech has never, ever been a strong point in the Old World, which is why it was important enough to the founding fathers of the US to vault it to the very first thing that is protected in the Bill of Rights.

If one person acts on another's words, it is the actor at fault, not the writer. If this was not true, there would be many, many artists that would be brought up on charges. For instance, the Beatles could have been brought up on charges for Charles Manson's ilk's actions. As it was, even old Charlie himself almost wasn't able to be accused; it took a lot of work to get the prosecution to take the case.

Now, in the EU, this seems like it is soon to be the case, though...

Comment: Re:the world was supposed to end years ago (Score 1) 637 637

...It is unclear what the end goal of having an Earthly life is, but it certainly is implied that testing is involved.

Love this.... Great way to put it.

To me that means that you work for heaven here, but that you take care of yourself while you're here.

Take care of yourself, and more importantly, others who cannot take care of themselves...

There may be people who do believe as you suggest, but that has nothing to do with being religious, and more to do with people who don't care about long term effects because they can't see how it affects them.

Or they have completely lost confidence in the reporting/research/reliability of the scientists who are pundits for whatever end-world crisis is being discussed.

Take GW/GCC for instance. There have been so many scandals about the data being used, and false warnings year after year, that they are becoming the proverbial "boy who cried wolf", with no chance of wolf in the yet-to-be-proven forecast. The fact that they shout any naysayers down (rather than accepting criticism and dealing with it, as true scientists are supposed to do) does not help their case. The fact that there is so much money available for research, offered up by BOTH sides of the argument, also makes both sides look like they are finding the answer that fits the mindset of the moneychangers. The fact that they offer the opinion that "EVERYONE" now believes and backs their theory smells dangerously like the Eugenics movement at the turn of the last century.

The fact that they blame religion for unbelief is spectacularly laughable... I myself want to see solid proof of GW/GCC, I want to see some predictions come true, I want to hear even one GW/GCC pundit calmly and rationally explain how the naysayers are wrong, with actual proof. No proof has been given, other than "We KNOW this is true, so you have to believe us!" No predictions have come true, or have even been CLOSE to reality. None of them have said, "You know, the climate is really, really complex, with lots of variables, really one of the most complex systems that humans have ever tried to understand, and there will be mistakes made, there will be poor calculations given, and we will be wrong most of the time."

The end game should be to make the Earth a more habitable, less polluted environment. I'm all for that, and I don't need a FUD like GW to make me work toward that goal. And that is exactly what GW/GCC is being used as: FUD. When a person recognizes that, it's another nail in the coffin, and they turn their attention elsewhere and think, "Those greenies are nuts, they are wrong, and they will continue to be wrong, so why bother?"

Comment: Re:But dude, there was a snowball (Score 1) 639 639

Well said. "Since our data doesn't disprove the opposition, let's just 'fix' the data so that it does."

Because of things like this, GW and GCC are dead to me. If "scientists" can't proof their theories without manipulating real-world data, and refuse to accept that peers will double check and, yes, even disagree and try to disprove their theories, then they aren't real scientists. They are puppets for their grant money and will find whatever conclusion that keeps that money rolling in.

Comment: Re:Linux Mint gets it right. (Score 1) 155 155

I think you're the one who's deluded. Have you even tried a newer version of any of the distros?

I have been running Mint since either 11 or 12 (now on 17), and I have never seen a printer it won't just connect and print to.

Installation is easily 1/4 the time of a Windows installation. And things just work. I don't know where you are getting your opinion, honestly and seriously.

Comment: Re:Linux Mint gets it right. (Score 1) 155 155

Also Linux is very buggy on desktop.


I have used Mint on my laptop since 11 or 12 (I can't remember which). I run (typically) weeks on end before rebooting. What kind of "buggy" are you talking about, because it's much more stable than either my Windows laptop (reboot at least every day) or my Macbook Pro (which, admittedly, is aging.)

Comment: Re:Won't know any better (Score 1) 435 435

Or for those of us who prefer to have our pet as part of the family and not caged during family outings:

Safety and inclusiveness both met.

Not saying that some pets wouldn't be more comfortable and (mentally) secure inside of a carrier; it all depends on the individual. However, you may not want to strap it in, as it may kill your pet in the event of a crash:

Comment: Re:Selling Freezers to Eskimos (Score 1) 126 126


And, fine, let's say you can buy a $20 computer from goodwill (probably running XP, just waiting to virus the place up, though I've never seen goodwill selling used computers), but what about access? Can't get to the e-book without Internet access. People living hand-to-mouth cannot afford Internet access. People living hand-to-mouth shouldn't be able to afford a cell phone either, or they technically aren't living hand-to-mouth. So, how the hell are they supposed to access the e-book with their $20 computer?

This whole thing is a stunt. The Administration is taking credit for what a bunch of publishers are giving away (probably for hefty tax savings or something) to people who aren't going to be able to use the give-away anyhow. Unless, of course, they spend time in a library (where this would work very well), but do the libraries have the infrastructure and devices available to use in-house?

A stunt not thought through thoroughly. And very transparent as a stunt.

Comment: Re:But will it blend? (Score 2) 247 247

Actually, water will stop the latter much more easily than the former... Larger rounds hit the surface tension of a body of water with so much force that they typically disintegrate, whereas smaller rounds, moving more slowly, will penetrate deeper into the water. Either way, a couple of feet of water between you and the bullet will protect you pretty well. Now, the shockwave from that 30mm round hitting the water may be something to contend with...

Also, I haven't seen this type of test performed with depleted uranium shells either. That would be a cool test...

Comment: Re:You no longer own a car (Score 1) 649 649

That's the whole point, though... The logical endgame here is to NOT allow you to change your headlamp bulb, and require you to bring it into the shop so that an authorized, qualified technician will replace it properly, thus maintaining the integrity and safety of the automobile.

Logic is not necessarily at play here. They are again going after the aftermarket and home mechanics. If you are not an "authorized" aftermarket manufacturer, who has paid the fee to get the "authorized" label, you will have no business, UNDER THE LAW! This is just like a Microsoft EULA: you pays the price, but you don't really own the device. It's still under the control and maintenance of the manufacturer, and you won't have the right to do any maintenance. Taken to the extreme, there won't be a way to even open the hood unless you have the special tool to open it. And selling the tool to any unauthorized people will be made illegal. Have a flat? You better have paid up your AAA, or you're stranded.

This is a very slippery slope that the law is considering. I hope this is completely and totally quashed. Or at least limited to a voided warranty.

And, there are LOTS of vehicles with LED elements in their headlamps now. They aren't necessarily the headlamp bulb itself, but rather secondary marking lamps. I think that's what A/C was talking about. Hopefully they don't come out with a law that states that they have to be fully functional, OR ELSE a ticket.

Comment: Re:You have to be careful (Score 2) 173 173

Love your post... Unfortunately, it's completely logical. Therefore, it will not be done. People are stupid pack-thought animals that don't respond well to logic, even if it's in their best interest.

I miss Kinison and Carlin. Both used simple logic and common sense in their comedy.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"