Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: "He hasn't stopped giving." (Score 1) 284

by interkin3tic (#49684315) Attached to: Bill Gates Still Trying To Buy Some Common Core Testing Love
I realize you and all your linux-using friends might know him as a heartless bastard, but if you think "history" will remember the greedy things he did to computing, I think you're being naive.

I'm wondering if most people today even remember that he started MS. "Bill Gates? He's that rich guy who runs a charity. Can't quite remember how he got his money. Did he invent computers?"

Comment: Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! (Score 1) 284

by interkin3tic (#49684237) Attached to: Third Bangladeshi Blogger Murdered In As Many Months

Islam is the religion of peace! Well, except for a few radicals, maybe 2 or 3 percent, which would only make about a million radicals. And, maybe except for their supporters, maybe 20 percent or so, which would make about 200 million.

I actually think you have those numbers closer to reversed. The financial supporters of terrorism seem to pretty much be limited to those loyal middle eastern friends of ours, Saud royal family.

Comment: Re:Seriously...? (Score 1) 241

by interkin3tic (#49648679) Attached to: James Comey: the Man Who Wants To Outlaw Encryption
I'd argue that nearly the entire defense industry is completely unnecessary to national defense. Fighting terrorism is not national defense. Keeping Iraq intact is not national defense. Supporting Israel is not national defense. Keeping friendly powers in OPEC to keep them from raising oil prices is not national defense. Being aggressive to Iran is not national defense.

Telling ourselves all of these things are important to somehow keep bad guys from boating over here and invading is a wonderful way of avoiding admitting that we're utterly incompetent at doing much more than making enemies to fight later. Also keeps the money flowing. I'd be okay with it mostly if we could 1. Admit that it's not "national defense" it's just being dicks and 2. If it wouldn't impinge on our freedoms.

Comment: Error in headline (Score 5, Insightful) 301

The paper was not rejected because of one reviewer. It's standard to have THREE reviewers, this is one guy out of three. Additionally, it's the editor's call whether to accept or reject it. Typically that's based on the reviewers recommendation. However, the editor could and should have ignored that one reviewer and accepted it anyway. Actually, the AE should have deleted the review and said to the authors "Sorry, the third reviewer never turned in his review, sending it out for a different reviewer." The AE could have accepted it even if all three reviewers had insightful criticisms of the paper and said it was horrible.

In other words, the rejection for publication could have nothing to do with that one review, it was not rejected due to that review, it was rejected by the editor who showed poor judgement in accepting the sexist review.

Comment: Re:Feminism is self-proving (Score 0) 301

That's not proving the specific hypothesis being tested in the paper. Anyone who was convinced that discrimination was not still an issue will probably find ways of explaining away this incident, just like they have with all the other things that indicate there is still a problem.

Comment: Re:Well... (Score 1) 118

by interkin3tic (#49481053) Attached to: Jack Thompson Will Be Featured In BBC Film 'Grand Theft Auto'
Honestly, how ARE they going to introduce him in a positive or even neutral manner?

I'm picturing him talking with a text box appearing beneath his picture: "Jack Thompson, Lawyer (former), publicity hound (failed), censor (failed), moral crusader (shunned by other moral crusaders), and expert on making (inaccurate) statements about videogames"?

BBC: "Mr. Thompson, you... have opinions on the grand theft auto series, don't you? You can accurately say that much at least, right? Can you tell us what they are without it somehow backfiring on you, pathetically and hilariously?"

Comment: Re:Another slashvertisement (Score 2) 148

by interkin3tic (#49464841) Attached to: Nearly Half of <em>Game of Thrones</em> Season 5 Leaks Online
He didn't say he read the books, so he only went at most half hipster.

For full hipster credit, he would had to 1. say he read the books before the show came out, 2. say that they were ruined by the TV show and 3. found a way to say the books were much better than the TV show he's supposedly never seen WITHOUT saying "because it's popular."

Comment: Re:Correlation is not Causation (Score 1) 324

by interkin3tic (#49382117) Attached to: Poverty May Affect the Growth of Children's Brains
The devil would be in the details. Companies would lobby hard for exceptions to be made and abused and nonsense. See the pasta sauce counting as a serving of vegetable for an example. Rules defining what is and is not a fruit, veggie, meat, and milk aren't very sexy, there's not going to be a lot of public oversight of the process until it gets ridiculous (see again pasta sauce as vegetable for an example.)

I'd like to see a pilot program where food stamps can only be used to purchase something like soylent. Nutritionally complete and defined, no ability for food megacorps to get much wiggle room, and healthy.

If it's working, the diagnostics say it's fine. If it's not working, the diagnostics say it's fine. - A proposed addition to rules for realtime programming

Working...