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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:I really just don't get it. (Score 0) 75

I see you dont know ANYTHING about the revolutionary war.

1776 was a bunch of rich people convincing the poor to fight for them. George washington was just pissed his riches were being taxed along with all the other "founding fathers" It was a fantastic job of convincing most oft he citizens to fight for "freedom" that only the richest men enjoyed and they shovelled that " you can be too" BS down their throats to help convince parents to send their kids to die for the rich guys.

Tea partiers don' know anything about american history other than the propaganda crap taught in high-school. It's why you guys are not taken seriously.

The biggest difference, back then the rich guys had the balls to actually be near the front lines and even on them. Today our country is ran by 100% cowards.

Comment Too early (Score 1) 28

Clinton looks like being the Dem nominee, but it's way too early in the cycle to say she absolutely will be. She has a popularity problem to overcome, and there's a sizable ABH contingent within the Democratic Party. She's stunning for her almost complete lack of charisma, her ability to make any displays of empathy or emotion look fake, her enthusiastic embrace of clearly flawed establishment positions on every issue, and a resume that looks like a set of check boxes rather than useful experience.

I can more confidently say I think Sanders is toast, and I don't see Warren as terribly likely either. Sanders is too much of a Ron Paul candidate to do anything but make a lot of noise. Warren has future potential, but she would have had to start "campaigning" four years ago. She's shown herself to be "tough on bad things", but not really anything else.

On the Republican side:

- Again, too early to completely rule out Trump but I'm finding it ridiculously unlikely he'll get the nomination. That view might change if he actually polls well in any early primaries.
- I honestly can't tell about the others. Well, I think the Republicans are unlikely to nominate the religious or ideological extremists (who are mostly positioning themselves for future jobs on Fox anyway), so that leaves - of the ones Fox is picking for their main debates - Bush, Christie, Kasich, Rubio, and Walker. It's tempting to find reasons to disqualify each. Bush is an establishment figure loathed by the grassroots... like Romney (2012). Christie is a populist pseudo-centrist loathed by the grassroots... like McCain (2008). Walker and Kasich are merely known as right wing governors at this point, like numerous former nominees. And Rubio is treading a relatively untrodden path and is fairly popular.

So, TL;DR, I just think it's too early to assume anything. Clinton may win, but if she does, she'll be our McCain (2008) candidate, and we might just lose as a result.

Submission + - Human induced climate change is shifting major climate zones->

GregLaden writes: Human caused climate change is changing the size and location of major climate zones, according to a new study just out.

It isn't just that climate zones move north; more complicated than that.

The most tropical of the tropical zones does not change much, semi-arid and arid zones expand a lot at the expense of areas that are important for agriculture. Overall this indicates a general bummer rather than good news.

This study confirms what other's have shown, but adds that there may be accelerated change in coming decades.

Link to Original Source

Submission + - Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars->

Layzej writes: Citi Global Perspectives & Solutions (GPS), a division within Citibank (America’s third-largest bank), recently published a report looking at the economic costs and benefits of a low-carbon future. The report considered two scenarios: “Inaction,” which involves continuing on a business-as-usual path, and Action scenario which involves transitioning to a low-carbon energy mix.

One of the most interesting findings in the report is that the investment costs for the two scenarios are almost identical. In fact, because of savings due to reduced fuel costs and increased energy efficiency, the Action scenario is actually a bit cheaper than the Inaction scenario. Coupled with the fact the total spend is similar under both action and inaction, yet the potential liabilities of inaction are enormous, it is hard to argue against a path of action.

But there will be winners and losers: The biggest loser stands to be the coal industry, where we estimate cumulative spend under our Action scenario could be $11.6 trillion less than in our Inaction scenario over the next quarter century, with renewables, wind and nuclear (as well as energy efficiency) the main beneficiaries.

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Rexx, J (Score 1) 389

I once spend a day hacking on J. Never warmed up to the ASCII replacements of the original APL character set.

In university, long ago, they had a mandatory course for English majors that used SNOBOL. My willingness to help out with SNOBOL programming got me more attention from girls than anything else I did there.

On another note, I wouldn't want to be the person tasked with proving the Turing completeness of DSSSL. It might not be hard (one way or the other), but I just wouldn't want to have to do it.

Comment Skydiving More (Score 1) 728

Mostly just more skydiving and less working for douschebags. Having to work 40 hours a week to support my hobby, I've got several more years flying a wingsuit and jumping from a plane before I feel comfortable getting into BASE. And most of the good BASE jumping is Europe. Barring accidents, I think I could easily spend a couple of decades at this hobby, even if that was all I was doing.

Comment Re:Use-case? (Score 1) 157

The FreeBSD Project has a problem harboring unrepentant douche bags like Kip Macy, and also Randi Harper.

You do know that there is such a thing as false conviction, and the standard of "repentance or permanent ostracization"—remaining in glorious effect long after punishment by the state has run its course—effectively demands the the wrongfully convicted confess to crimes they never committed, in order to have any hope of returning to productive society ever again?

In general (absent subsequent evidence), we don't actually know who are the wrongfully convicted, or we wouldn't have convicted them in the first place.

Sometimes (for a value of "sometimes" with no fixed address) the rush to judgment really sucks ass. That ought to give you at least a moment's pause before this kind of sentiment as an anonymous coward. It's why we allow the state to assign punishment rather than throwing blemished produce at the town pillory (e.g. a perfectly edible cucumber that's not quite straight, or harbours somewhere a small scab).

Sure, he sounds like a royal douche. But is it really my job to see that he suffers forever-after on nothing but a thin gruel of second-hand story telling?

Has it never occurred to you that there's a downside to your unthoughtful bitterness?

The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White

Working...