Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Hydroelectric Dams (Score 1) 202

by nine-times (#47711373) Attached to: Solar Plant Sets Birds On Fire As They Fly Overhead

About 40,000 people die in car accidents every year, in the US alone. It's one of those things that I keep pointing out because people keep seeming to fail to realize how many people that is. When people say, "We can't have solar power because it'll kill a thousand birds!" or "We can't have freedom (i.e. NSA spying and CIA torture is ok!) because otherwise we might have another 9/11, which killed a thousands of people!"

40,000 people die every year due to car accidents. Nobody is talking about giving up cars.

Comment: Re:This actually makes perfect sense. (Score 2) 89

by hey! (#47708377) Attached to: Scientists Find Traces of Sea Plankton On ISS Surface

Except water vapor is the gaseous form of water; the plankton would have to be transported on individual molecules of water to reach the ionosphere.

If plankton were transportable in microscopic *droplets* in the troposphere as you suggest, a more plausible explanation is that the equipment was contaminated -- both the station itself and the gear used to test it.

Comment: Re:Trust, but verify (Score 1) 143

I disagree. It means trust but don't rely entirely on trust when you have other means at your disposal.

Consider a business deal. You take the contract to your lawyer and he puts all kinds of CYA stuff that supposedly protects you against bad faith. But let me tell you: if the other guy is dealing in bad faith you're going to regret getting mixed up with him, even if you've got the best lawyer in the world working on the contract. So you should only do critical deals with parties you trust.

But if the deal is critical, you should still bring the lawyer in. Why? Because situtations change. Ownership and management change. Stuff can look different when stuff doesn't go the way everyone hoped. People can act differently under pressure. Other people working at the other company might not be as trustworthy as the folks sitting across the table from you. All kinds of reasons.

So you trust, but verify that the other party can't stab you in the back, because neither method is 100% effective. It's common sense in business, and people usually don't take it personally. When they *do*, then that's kind of fishy in my opinion.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 4, Interesting) 639

by drinkypoo (#47703329) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

AmiMojo counts sentiments like yours as proof of hate. If you disagree (or ask for meaningful evidence) that the problem is all around us and unbearable then you obviously support misogyny.

When you ask for meaningful evidence of misogyny on slashdot (or wider society) you only underscore your blindness to the problem. You shouldn't need anyone to point out examples, because an intelligent person would be able to find a discussion and skim it. When you learn to use the internets, you'll spend a lot less time whining.

Every woman I know well enough to tell me whether she has been raped has been raped. (I don't ask, obviously.) Either you live in a magical fairy world where women are treated better than they are in Northern California, or women don't trust you well enough for you to know how serious the problem is. And let me tell you, based on your statements, I am something less than shocked.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 639

by drinkypoo (#47703289) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

There are literally thousands of square miles in the western U.S. where you
are unlikely to see another human being for days, if ever.

You didn't log in because you know this is an idiot argument, because practically nobody lives there or will ever go there. You're addressing essentially no percentage of the population.

We don't have ASBOs or much of the other nanny state bullshit


No, instead we have a probation system. Know anything about it? Apparently not.

Keep your nanny state bullshit to yourself, buddy, we don't want OR NEED some twit
like you telling us what is acceptable. You see, WE in the U.S. are citizens, not

Keep telling yourself that. It has already been shown that this is an Oligarchy. You are only fooling yourself. Idiot, stop telling tales.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 4, Insightful) 639

by drinkypoo (#47703251) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.

What? Fuck you sideways. I mean, I personally have no problem whatsoever with lesbigaytrangenderedetc people but I will stand up for anyone's right to do so. I get off the bus before it gets to the stop where you're permitted to treat people with prejudice when you're in a position of power. If I am a public figure who has a responsibility to people regardless of their sexual orientation, ideally you would have no idea what my personal position in fact is because I would do my job and it would not matter.

Further, there's plenty of gay people who don't like straight people, or don't like straight people of certain kinds. Are you going to go tell them that's not okay? Or is it still acceptable to hate on nominally white, nominally straight males?

Furthermore, note that "disliking homosexuals" is marginal, even among evangelical Christian organizations [...] "God loves the homosexual."

If you're going to start claiming that evangelical christians are like god, then you're really going to have to deal with an endless deluge of laughter and derision.

The key issue for LGBT rights activists is freedom to marry, which is "equal treatment under the law," not "equality of outcome."

No, no it is not. The key issue for LGBT rights activists is equality, which is "equal treatment under the law". It is a mark of how far our society has not come that we are actually arguing over one specific aspect of equality with such fervor. Next, we will get to move onto the next aspect of equality, still without actually recognizing that homosexuals are human beings who deserve equal protection under the law to every other human being. Instead, we continue to treat them like a subclass, and make them beg, plead, and finally fight for each individual right. Perhaps soon we will permit them to sit in the front of the bus.

Comment: Re:Automation, remote controls already exist (Score 1) 235

Automation is here. Being paranoid about one particular application of it won't help anyone.

It's scary because cars are already deadly and already everywhere. If you give them inadequate security (got) and an internet connection (some have, some are getting) and oh, also make them self-driving (on the way) then their very ubiquity makes the threat realistic. There's not that many people out there with a nice quadcopter capable of long-range flight who also have possession of explosives or even skill to credibly make same without blowing themselves up and you can bet that most of them are being monitored. But self-driving cars will soon be absolutely everywhere...

Comment: Re:You get nothing. Good day, sir! (Score 1) 147

DO NOT DO THIS. If it works and you overshoot, you'll induce another ice age,

It's taken us a long time and a lot of energy to fuck up the biosphere this badly. We won't reverse the trend that quickly even if we try. There are other concerns, though. For example, secondary effects from attempts to fix the problem...

Comment: Re:This is so silly (Score 1) 288

by drinkypoo (#47699011) Attached to: WikiLeaks' Assange Hopes To Exit London Embassy "Soon"

The UK won't extradite Assange unless the USA asks us to. Have you heard of any extradition requests form the USA yet? No, neither have I. Assange isn't afraidd of the Americans, he is afraid of the Swedish, specifically, he's not sure he will be found innocent of the rape charges.

That might be true, but if so, that reasoning applies whether or not the charges are true.

"Pascal is Pascal is Pascal is dog meat." -- M. Devine and P. Larson, Computer Science 340