Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:A dollar in design... (Score 1) 93

by arth1 (#49498483) Attached to: Incorrectly Built SLS Welding Machine To Be Rebuilt

There is nothing wrong with outsourcing it. You just need to make sure you have good quality control.

Which drives costs up, often quite radically.

When you build something for your own company, the goal is to get as good quality as feasible within time and budget constraints. Next year's salary depends on it.

When you build something as a bidding contractor for the government, the goal is to reduce your costs by as much as you can get away with and exceeding the budget with as much as you can get away with.
It doesn't matter if what you deliver is utter crud as long as you can get away with it. Politicians ensure that next year, you will be able to bid again, and if your bid is the lowest, get the contract. At which point you hire the cheapest unskilled labor and subcontractors that can do the job and no more. Quality, shmality.

Comment: Re:Fuck ups require more work (Score 1) 93

by arth1 (#49498435) Attached to: Incorrectly Built SLS Welding Machine To Be Rebuilt

Rather the opposite. WIth the "libtards" truly in charge, there would be no outsourcing and subcontracting, and NASA would hire people to build things themselves.

The republicans are the ones that demand outsourcing and paperwork that often equals half the total costs. Because heavens forbid if a government agency did something that private companies could do. That is considered anticompetitive theft by the right. Which is why NASA can't do much themselves anymore, and get less bang for the buck.

Comment: Open Tech is closing? (Score 0) 102

No wonder Open Tech is closing in Microsoft. It is the brilliant minds of Microsoft that conceived of putting " shut down " in the "start" menu. It was so bad it became good, and now even Microsoft is not able to get rid of the start button. Same way they might find it impossible to close their open tech.

Comment: Ken Burns documentary a couple of weeks back (Score 3, Interesting) 21

by 140Mandak262Jamuna (#49487877) Attached to: New Chemical Tools Lead To Targeted Cancer Drugs
NPR had a Ken Burns documentary on cancer, the emperor of maladies (or mother of all diseases or something similar).

It was a typical Ken Burns documentary, history etc. One salient part of the documentary was that cancer is not a single disease. It is a huge variety of diseases causing uncontrolled cell divisions. Further the cancer a patient has changes, evolves over time. Many promising drugs work very well initially but the cancer adapts to the drug.

Another salient part of it is the exponential increase in the cost of treatment. It has gone upwards of 100,000$ per patient per year in drugs. I am sure the researchers in Caltech know more about it than I do, but still, one wonders are they raising hopes needlessly and prematurely.

Comment: Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score 1) 698

by arth1 (#49484501) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

"Self-evident" laws presuppose a spark of divinity in mankind.

No, it doesn't. Only that we have evolved into a species that has increased the survival rates by co-existing. Those who don't do what's detrimental to society get rewarded by a higher rate of surviving offspring. No divinity needed.

"Thou shalt not bring crocodiles to a pool party" is a self-evident law.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is not.

It also means that what's self-evident changes over time, and that supposedly "eternal" laws are doomed or detrimental in the long run.
This might be a win for civil law, where laws are re-interpreted based on the context and circumstances, and a bane for common law, where rulings encase the law interpretation.
Perhaps one day, tame crocodiles provide swimming support for children, and the self-evident law is no longer self-evident.
The "thou shalt not commit adultery" needs revision as we progress into an age where sex has no higher risk of propagating diseases and producing children than we want it to have.

Comment: Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score 1) 698

by arth1 (#49482453) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

The question is how do we legislate the difference between what the Church of Scientology is and what we think a church should be. How do we write a definition of "church" in the law that will exclude people like the Scientologists without allowing that law to then be leveraged against legitimate belief organizations that are merely unpopular?

Why is that the question?
Can't we just drop tax heaven for religious reasons across the board?
If religious organizations do charity work, they'd still be eligible for those branches being exempt under current laws.

I'm just waiting for a church to re-launch the old religious custom of temple prostitution. Can't be taxed, because it's religious... Right?

Comment: Not as impressive as the first achievement. (Score 1) 13

The call for papers have always been difficult to read pieces of work. You quickly glance at the deadlines to see if you can get one in, then the location to see if it is worth going there and pass on. Except for the more aged members of the academia who sit in panels and act as editors to pad up an useless CV no one cares about all these names in these calls.

So it is not as difficult to create spurious call for papers.

Comment: Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score 1) 698

by arth1 (#49479675) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

They are not tax free because they are religious, they are tax free because they are non-profit.

You are mistaken. To quote IRS:

"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.
The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."

Comment: Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score 2) 698

by arth1 (#49479539) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

Our government does not get to define a religion.

They most certainly do define it from a tax perspective - you have to fit criteria set by our government.
See what IRS says about it.

It is not allowed to say one persons beliefs are more correct then another.

No, that would be like saying '"two plus two equals five" is more correct than "two plus two equals three"'. I certainly don't want them to utter such stupidity either.

Always try to do things in chronological order; it's less confusing that way.