Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Hipsters fight over limited supplies of juice (Score 1) 493

That would be a weird and backwards thing to do. One of the main advantages of EVs is that you don't need to take 10 minutes out of your day to park and wait for hydrocarbons to flow into a tank.

If you spend ten minutes of *every* *day* filling fuel then EV's aren't going to work for your range anyway.

FWIW, I spend around 0 minutes per week filling fuel. I pull into the forecourt, tell the attendant "fill 'er up" and buy bread/smokes/whatever at the shop. The car is filled before I exit the shop. Even I am not filling fuel, there's always something to get at the shop so I generally stop there twice a week or so.

Comment Re:CVS or Subversion (Score 1) 315

Bullshit. I have used SVN. People who think it works don't know what they are talking about. Watch the frigging Google Tech Talk and get back to me in a couple of hours after it has all sunk in.

You're off to a poor start if the only way to present your argument is via TV. I view very little TV and have even less time to view 60 seconds of material stretched over 10 minutes.

Comment Re:How I would handle getting laid as a professor (Score 1) 342

- Never date an undergraduate student, even if theyâ(TM)re nontraditional.

I disagree, a very good friend of mine, a 35 year old divorcee who was a mature undergrad student dated and eventually married a young professor from another department who was 3 years younger than her. Are you suggesting she's incapable of approaching this relationship of her own free will? Does she suddenly become mentally incompetent by virtue of her gender?

I agree with you, but in a slightly different way - just because a relationship lasts into a long marriage doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with short relationships. A week after my first divorce filing [1], I was 35 years old and banging a 19 year old biochemistry student at a university I sometimes visited friends at (I lectured at a different university but networked properly). We only spent a few weeks dating before happily parting ways, but that doesn't mean there was anything dysfunctional in the relationship.

Of course it helps when they aren't *your* student and especially when they aren't in your university, but my point still stands - nothing wrong with a short relationship.

[1] I view marriage like I view git commits - do it early, do it often :-)

Comment Re:We should not protect them (Score 1) 342

If the university sides with the instructor and the instructor is found guilty, it will be said that the university encourages sexual harassment. If the university sides with the instructor and the instructor is found innocent, it will be said that the university covered it up.

This is the only sane response: the university should hand off (with whatever evidence may exist) to LEO and abide by a courts ruling in terms of who is telling the truth and who is not. The university is usually neither equipped nor experienced in running a trial.

Comment Re:Academia is willing to protect total dicks (Score 1) 342

Yep, holding a door open for someone, a.k.a. "common courtesy", was labelled as a form of rape when it was a man holding the door for a woman.

Smells like bullshit to me.

One would hope so, but FTFA Feynman was misogynistic because:

"Feynman documented various strategies he adopted for trying to get women in bars to sleep with him"

"Feynman used to pretend to be a student so he could ask undergraduate women out"

"[Feynman had] documented affairs with two married women, "

"the propensity to lie on the beach and watch girls"

The sexism-is-everywhere brigade is insane if they think that lying to pick up women, or looking at them on the beach, or hitting on them in bars, or adultery... is sexist.

Comment Re:Um... then don't go to sites (Score 1) 317

I see your point, but don't see why we can't have both. Usenet is still going, anyone can set up a free site and ad driven popular sites have pushed costs down for everyone.

Actually we *can* have both, but not if the advertisers get their way. Usenet fell by the wayside due to the wall of spam that came about, so chalk that up to advertisers killing a perfectly usable medium. The web is going to go the same way if site owners insist on intersitials(sp?) and other such tomfoolery. If the advertisers don't want lose eyeballs they'd better start behaving better - the market has spoken and it has almost universally spoken *against* advertisers.

Comment Re:Um... then don't go to sites (Score 1) 317

Consider what you are arguing for. Get rid of free news sites with paid journalists, except for those funded some other way like the BBC or other state agencies. Many people will have to go back to getting news from ad supported TV channels or ad supported newspapers, so won't escape the ads anyway.

One of the reasons why newspapers are declining is the democratization of news. I think that's a good thing, it makes it harder to end up getting most of your news from a single (biased) source.

I hear what you're saying and I have considered it: the internet was just as useful to me back when ads were not everywhere as it is now. I *prefer* having sites where people who share a common interest gather and share the cost.

The difference between what I'm saying and what you're hearing is this: I see the internet as a fount of useful information and a place to gather with other like-minded people. You see the internet as a place to read the latest news.

With no ads and only user-supported sites/forums I can still learn all that I want to learn. I get my news on the radio anyway. The majority of stuff I do on the internet is linked to non-news, non-facebook, non-twitter, non-social-media, non-cat-videos, non-youtube stuff and non-buzzfeed crap.

The stuff I *do* use the internet for are related to forums around auto repair, guitar playing, metalwork, carpentry, building/construction, fiction-reading/writing, watercolor painting, electronic circuits, software-writing (OSS contributions), pencil/charcoal sketching, cooking, exercise, mechanical design (building a mill in my garage)... and a lot more that I probably will only remember at some later time when I don't need to.

(I have a lot of hobbies - very busy usually)

So you see, *my* internet will remain - those forums are mostly ad-free (and the people running them usually reveal how much they make off ads). If ads go away, it only takes a few tens of members chipping in a few cents a year to keep it going. Most forums have hundreds or thousands of members.

Like I said before, the internet was all fine and pretty useful before ads - it will be all fine and still pretty damn useful if ads were to go away :-)

Comment Re:Um... then don't go to sites (Score 1) 317

You can't have it both ways either. If you want quality journalism it has to be paid for, either by adverts or by subscription.

I'm okay with that - the internet worked fine prior to the days of ads. It worked fine *for* *me*, though; viewers who want to simply see cat videos should cough up for their favourite cat video site. Those of us who wanted to discuss metalworking, or gardening, etc could do so both for free AND without advertisements.

In short - sites that cannot find enough paying customers *should* die. Sites that don't need paying customers will still survive.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 363

What did I say that indicated I didn't know about half the people would be excluded?

I responded to nospam007, not to you. nospam007 said:

As you don't seem to realize that this would hit _half_ the voters,

and I said:

Actually, slightly less than half will not be able to vote.

Nospam007 did not realise that "IQ less than 100" means "less than half the population" and does not mean "half the population".

Comment Re:Then you'll have paywalls (Score 1) 317

[Then you'll have paywalls] and nothing else.

Incorrect - the internet was filled with information even when no website advertised. It will continue being filled with information if ads go away. The ad-supported sites are no longer needed due to their decreasing signal/noise ratio. Even has become pointless. Let them become paywalls and we'll pay for the ones that deserve to live.

Comment Re:Um... then don't go to sites (Score 4, Insightful) 317

that you don't like. Not sure I see the problem. You decide what's fair. If it's not fair don't go to those sites. You don't have to participate. It's not like anyone (outside of malware authors) is forcing you. If a site does things you don't like, stop typing their addy into your URL bar...

It appears to me that that is what advertisers are actually complaining about - 1) we block their ads, 2) they attempt to bypass our blocks, 3) we move on to a different site, 4) the site complains about freeloaders.

It's really very simply - if buzzfeed and co. went away the world would be a better place. They know it. We know it. They know we know it. So now they're engaging in a PR war rather than the technology war to get us to view their ads.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 363

Less than 100 IQ is supposed to be 1/2 the population, but it rarely works out that way.

My psychology professor administered a "demonstration" IQ test in class, possible scores ranged from 100 if you got everything wrong to 130 if you got everything right. Actual IQ tests aren't this bad, but they are skewed in this direction.

If you did disenfranchise 1/2 the population, it would likely be the 1/2 of the population that's easily manipulated and motivated to revolt... I like to avoid revolting political systems when I can.

Good luck - IME all political systems are revolting ;-)

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 363

"IQ is certainly not a perfect metric but if we use it only in a simple way it could be used. Less than 100 IQ, can't vote."

As you don't seem to realize that this would hit _half_ the voters, I'm glad you won't be able to vote with that system.

Actually, slightly less than half will not be able to vote.

Comment Re:"Women don't like trash talk, be more sensitive (Score 1) 927

You always consider your argument "won" - even when you don't actually "win" anything

The point whee you give up on any semblance of reasonableness and start simply making up stuff that you claim I've said---any reasonable person would consider the argument won.

Basically if you've got nothing left but lies you have lost.


Luckily my posting history is available to all; never once made up a thing. Of course, this is not the first time you accuse me of making something up, so, yeah - I'm used to it. After all, in this very thread you say that I claimed stuff that you did not claim - and this thread itself shows no such thing :-)

"I have five dollars for each of you." -- Bernhard Goetz