Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Multiple Issues (Score 3, Interesting) 387

First, NASA was pandering when it said space travel was like NASCAR. Any relationship is thoroughly stretched... except maybe the emphasis on orbiting. But space stations don't need to worry about camber.

Second, what Bill said was an "All tigers are cats" issue. Yes, you will probably see a higher concentration of NASCAR fans in the anti-NASA group, but by no means is he saying that NASA supporters cannot be NASCAR fans or that all NASCAR fans are unintelligent. He wasn't insulting "(All) NASCAR fans", he was equating people who pay more attention to NASCAR than NASA to a lower intelligence.

A: Your cousin is stupid.
B: How dare you insult my family name!?
A: No, not your family name-- YOUR COUSIN.

Comment Tea Party of the Left (Score 2) 585

I know plenty of Republicans and Libertarians that despise the extremism of the Tea Party. The Tea Party makes them look like idiots.

The progressive/liberal side of the spectrum has their own "Tea Party" and they are frequently referred to as "SJWs" or "Social Justice Warriors". They need a better name, though, because there are genuine social justice "warriors" that do good-- you know, like fighting against gerrymandering and police brutality. The "SJWs" that mess it all up are those that attempt to change the meanings of words. Examples:

Violence: Violence used to mean action that caused physical harm. Today, SJWs (the bad ones) are trying to change the common vocabulary so that speech that makes someone uncomfortable can be described as "violence".

Triggering: Triggering is a medical term regarding the genuine overwhelming emotions and memories that come flooding to one's forethought after being reminded of an extremely traumatic experience. Today, SJWs (the bad ones) are attempting to make everything a potential "trigger" for someone because it reminds them of something bad. It's not the same.

Racism: This one's pretty bad. Racism has a very specific definition. It's the belief that one race is better than another. However, SJWs (the bad ones) are attributing racism to just about anything that touches the topic of race, ethnicity, culture, etc. People accuse things without the capability of having beliefs of racism ("Is science racist?").

The examples go on and on... these (bad) SJWs are the Tea Party of the left. They tear down anyone who isn't as extreme as they are. But here's the rub-- since they fight for things that are generally accepted as good (reducing harm, protecting people, etc.), you just can't come out as against them or their tactics. And THAT is why schools are bending over backwards to not fight them. Schools are horrifically liability averse and they will almost always give in to the extremists on their side(s) rather than fight them and risk being slandered as rape-cultured and racist organizations.

Comment Re:Artistic, yes. Art, no. (Score 1) 153

You sound very angry. I would personally love to respond to your post to discuss the topic further, but I get the sense that you are so entrenched in your own definition that discussion from my side would be civil and you would be on the attack. I'm disappointed because it looks like you have a great deal of insight from which I could learn. Another time maybe.

Comment Artistic, yes. Art, no. (Score 1) 153

My personal view draws some relatively bold lines between something being art and being artistic.

The fine arts (music, dance, painting, sculpting, etc.) are obviously art. The value of the their existence is based squarely on their appraisal as art.

An automobile, a house (even a Frank Lloyd Wright home), and a video game can be artistic when judged for their artistic elements, but since they have primary functions beyond art, they cannot be wholly works of art. A video game, first and foremost, must be intentionally interactive with some sort of agenda for the player to fulfill. If an automobile does not have an engine, then it's not an automobile. And Frank Lloyd Wright himself continually professed that the form (artistic elements included) of an object should follow its function. He wasn't creating raw art, but integrating artistic sensibilities to functional pieces of everyday life.

Lastly, and I always piss some people off with this one, I don't think something can be art in the traditional sense if it is digital. Art must have the potential to be a failure. Painting, sculpting, even oration can all fail. Photography with traditional film can be an absolute waste if the appropriate lighting, focus, framing, etc. is not achieved. But in digital photography, you get the seemingly limitless opportunity to edit. Digital photography captures images and editing alters those images whereas film captures single, uneditable moments.

Video games can be written, re-written, launched, patched, upgraded, and have relative artistic value based on hardware. When all is said and done, it's more machine than man.

I also distinguish between sports, races, competitions, games and endeavors.

I do not expect many positive points for this post.

Comment "Right-of-Way" Misused. (Score 3, Interesting) 278

The organization asks that people default to "giving right-of-way" (yielding) to pedestrians. Pedestrians do not legally have permanent right-of-way. Right-of-way is determined by law, planning, and engineering.

The California Vehicle Code requires that all automobile drivers YIELD to pedestrians in the road, but as pedestrians do not have a permanent right-of-way, they can still be cited for jaywalking.

Comment Awareness only goes so far. ENFORCE! (Score 1) 278

Ya, seriously. Signage and awareness campaigns can only go so far. The engineering is solid. Everyone knows what they *should be doing*. Police need to re-focus a major part of their beat work on traffic violations. All the laws and all the engineering go unheeded if people don't think there are sufficiently detrimental consequences to their actions.

Enforce the damn laws.

Comment Re:Dear Mr Musk... (Score 1) 398

Here's why you're wrong about the tax credit:

"As a tax credit, the amount of your qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle tax credit reduces your tax bill on a dollar-for-dollar basis. In order to claim the credit, you have to have a tax liability you report on your return. It will not increase your refund beyond what is owed. Depending on your liability and other tax credits you take, you may not see the full tax savings of the tentative credit you calculate on Form 8936. This is because the credit is a nonrefundable credit. Nonrefundable tax credits cannot reduce your tax bill below zero and also reduce your tax bill for a number of other credits taken before reducing the remaining tax bill for your plug-in electric motor vehicle credit."

Here's why you're wrong about EV chargers in California Apartments:

AB 2565 makes it a requirement for a an apartment landlard to allow the installation of an EVSE (charger). While the charger can be had for less than $1,000 with rebates, installation still costs. If there's insufficient wiring to a garage. That costs, too. If there is no garage, then you need to buy a weatherized EVSE and have it installed outside. The renter is responsible for all costs, reporting, planning, and including removal when the apartment lease is up. This is cost prohibitive.

Comment Re:Dear Mr Musk... (Score 1) 398

Yes and no.

-- California has a $2,500 direct rebate (it's a check sent to you by the State).

-- The Federal Government has a $5,000 non-refundable tax rebate. That means you have to claim it on your taxes as a negative liability only to reduce existing tax liability. That means if you submit a $5,000 rebate and you're already getting a $250 refund, you get NOTHING from your $5,000 rebate. If you want your full $5,000 value, you have to change your tax witholdings for the year, save what you think you'll have to pay, apply the $5,000 tax rebate, pay what's left, and then look in your "tax savings account" and see what's left. That's your reward. That's not something that low-income people do.

-- To charge an electric vehicle at home, you need a garage or one of those incredibly rare apartments communities that offers EV charging. For comparison, I live in what most would consider a premium apartment community in one of the safest cities in America and there's not a single public EV charger anywhere in this apartment community or the owner's apartment system.

-- You have to travel a maximum distance per day given charge time.

EV are still additional "putt around" vehicles for the upper-middle and upper class. Almost no households live with ONLY an EV.

Comment It's never *just* RAM, Video Card Biases Results (Score 1) 350

It's a bit senseless to test whether there's a big difference between regular desktop use is affected by the jump from 4GB to 8GB when you have a a Geforce GTX 980 -- a card that has 4GB of its OWN RAM and costs as much as most people's workstations or home PCs.

Anyone who is running a recently purchased system (within the last 2 years) with only 4GB of RAM is very likely using on-board video as well. Who uses these computers? Rank and file office workers and home users who don't know better.

Getting just about any modern, budget video card will offload graphics work, un-share RAM, and reduce the use of virtual memory. It will make the 4GB stretch a lot farther and 8GB will be plenty for most people. But without that video card, there's just never enough RAM.

So, ya, if you want to say that going from 4GB to 8GB doesn't make a big difference, try making that change without your $500 video card.

Comment Re:It's Not About Porn (Score 1) 231

(1) I wish I could mod you up because that's a well argued AC post and I think good AC posts don't get the credit they deserve. Unfortunately, I've already commented in this thread (obviously) and thus cannot use my points.

(2) While porno is everywhere and easily accessible, anyone found with porno, or publicly admitting to watching/reading/etc. porno is going to be shamed. And that's what I mean by it being pervasive in society but still publicly taboo. If it was in no way publicly taboo, then where's the UK porno-lovers group standing up for porno rights?

Comment Re:It's Not About Porn (Score 4, Interesting) 231

I'm going to disagree here. There is no significant revenue that can come from the ISPs locking down porn access and people getting for accessing it in other ways. If the UK government wanted more money, it could spend a lot less to get a lot more.

This is about conservative social values and the political power of "think of the children". Since pornography is pervasive but still taboo in Western society, it's an easy political stranglehold because there simply aren't enough people willing to stand up and say, "It's my right to was two consenting adults go at it online." It's too publicly shameful. "Oh, look at him! He's probably a paedo! I would never look at that filth! Shame him! SHAME HIM!"

Since no one can publicly admit to it without such extreme shaming, no one's going to stand up and protect it. Thus someone supporting said conservative values will get the support of nearly everyone because "If you don't support it, then you likely should be shamed because you, too, are probably a paedo!"

This is completely a social and political tactic. Not financial.

All Finagle Laws may be bypassed by learning the simple art of doing without thinking.