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


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:Optimists is for fools (Score 1) 139

by circletimessquare (#49164597) Attached to: Spock and the Legacy of Star Trek

warring european states leapfrogged india, middle east, china technologically and started the colonial era instead of india, middle east, and china, exactly because they were warring states

if india or china or the middle east's internal make up was fierce rivalries lasting many centuries between small proud states, then india, china, or the middle east would have been colonizing europe with more advanced technology

now, europe is united under one political umbrella

and before the warring states period, it was tiny tribes increasingly united due to external warlike forces (rome, huns, mongols, etc)

meaning the trajectory of history of clear: always conflict, but conflict between increasingly larger groups

now it is united europe versus india, china (middle east is still fragmented)

that's progress, and that's real

and in the future, after we contact someone out there or they contact us, humanity will quickly unite behind a single banner, and war and rivalry will continue, but earth versus someone else. the trajectory of history preserved

btw, star trek was never peaceful

in star trek we have peaceful allies (vulcans, etc), but we also have warring neighbors who would gladly destroy us: romulans and klingons (whom always seemed to me to be symbolizing china, and ussr, respectively)

and the episodes were also always full of totally new unforeseen horrible dangers. no episode was "hi strangers, we come in peace, and everything is wonderful, the end"

so star trek is nothing but the stories from the age of exploration, the colonial era, and the cold war era, repackaged

my thought on the future and optimism is this:

when we meet someone out there, we will unite as one planet, and war with them

because: peace is stagnation, like india and china before being visited by europeans from the high seas. therefore if we become a peaceful united planet BEFORE meeting someone else, we will be stagnant technologically, and we will be devoured. like india or china in the colonial era

and if another planet was entirely peaceful, they would never have gone into space to meet us, they would have stagnated. and so we will meet them first, and colonize them like india or china or the aztecs or incans

in this way, i'm glad russia is pissing us off. we need to destroy and colonize russia, as china will most certainly do with siberia. split russia between europe and china. and advance technologically to preserve our fighting spirit in this way. and we will do this most certainly because russia is a belligerent, and weak, asshole

if there is no scramble, there is no reason to advance

but scramble we will

Comment: Re:Optimists is for fools (Score 1) 139

by circletimessquare (#49163977) Attached to: Spock and the Legacy of Star Trek

So... how many people do believe in "1984" or "Brave New World"? Or "Neuromancer"?

all those who complain about that and do nothing. they believe in slavery. then they act like a slave

all of the cynics who call reality today just like 1984, they believe in it. and make it true, by defining an oppressive reality, then doing nothing about it and agreeing to be oppressed. "today is just like 1984!" (goes back to playing video games)

there's always vile people at work in the world. you can almost excuse them, for being honest about who they are and what they intend

it's the cowardly cynical lazy motherfuckers, who whine and moan about a problem, then don't do a fucking thing about it, that you really can't excuse. the person who sees someone intend malice to them, and then accepts it and takes it and helps in their own enslavement?

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."

- Albert Einstein

merely complaining about a problem is not enough. if you do nothing about it, you ACCEPT it, and you HELP those you hate. you believe in your own subjugation when you identify it, then do nothing about it

you become a slave, not because there are slavemongers, but because you act like one: whine and moan and think you can't change anything

well indeed: a coward can't change anything. because their cowardly beliefs define their reality. only those with heart and who believe in something positive change this world (and then get ridiculed by the cynical slaves, who don't deserve the person with heart at all, because they work against the person of heart, by siding with the malicious in their cynical beliefs)

this is the psychological basis of whining cowards, complicit in their own enslavement:


Learned helplessness is a behaviour in which an organism forced to endure aversive, painful or otherwise unpleasant stimuli, becomes unable or unwilling to avoid subsequent encounters with those stimuli, even if they are escapable. Presumably, the organism has learned that it cannot control the situation and therefore does not take action to avoid the negative stimulus.[1] Learned helplessness theory is the view that clinical depression and related mental illnesses may result from a perceived absence of control over the outcome of a situation.[2] Organisms that have been ineffective and less sensitive in determining the consequences of their behaviour are defined as having acquired learned helplessness.[3]

teach yourself a new trick, slave

the dogs in the learned helplessness experiment were shocked, and could not escape. then they opened the door, and shocked the dogs again. some escaped, but others just lay down and accepted the shocks rather than escape. made slaves. their belief became their reality. no oppression needed, the oppression is all in their head without the slightest finger needing to be lifted by the slavemonger

Comment: Re:Optimists is for fools (Score 4, Insightful) 139

by circletimessquare (#49162741) Attached to: Spock and the Legacy of Star Trek

humanity doesn't adapt to the world, we adapt the world to us. we don't grow fur in cold weather, we kill animals and drape their skins on us. we don't forage for berries, we plant berry seeds and grow them when and where we want them. we don't lie outside in the rain and sun, we build our own caves out of peat, mud, thatch

point is: we are emergent phenomenon, not static reflectors. we believe something, then we make it happen for real. and if we believe in unreal things, don't laugh, because maybe someday we really will fly like birds and walk on the moon

that also means fatalism and pessimism is what is really for losers. a child's crazy dream today is our reality in a few years

lust like our group beliefs and efforts become our reality, individual lives are reflections of individual attitudes. so if you believe things will never get better, you're right, they won't... but only in your life

don't mistake your stunted imagination and your ignorant empty cynicism for our reality. your defeatist attitude is a self fulfilling prophecy only for you, not all of us

Comment: Re:Jerri (Score 4, Informative) 315

oh i see, it's more of this "al gore flew on a gas guzzling jet airplane once, therefore he is a hypocrite, therefore climate change is not a problem" ignorant bullshit

moral ineptitude

"i knew a guy once who got away with a crime... therefore this guy right here should get away with murder too, it's only fair"

hey genius: "two wrongs don't make a right"

ever hear of it?

do you know what that means, morally?

it means that just because you can criticize democrats for something, anything, it doesn't mean suddenly all republican crimes now magically disappear

the fact that everyone fucks up doesn't mean actual criminal douchebags are immune. i jaywalk, you point out that horrible crime of mine, and now the fact you killed someone is excused because we both committed crimes? this is what you call right and wrong?

real morality: you criticize the democrats of what they *specifically* do wrong, and you criticize the republicans for what they *specifically* do wrong, and you keep your criticism proportional to the crime, and you don't equate minor bullshit with a major outrage

imagine fucking that: actual valid moral reasoning

Comment: Re:Jerri (Score 5, Insightful) 315

because the bush administration did so well with the "jump in guns blazing" routine

which, btw, led to the creation of ISIS

much like the economic crisis of 2008, also miraculously blamed on obama, conservatives have this stunning routine where they fuck up, and liberals are at fault for it somehow with creative loopy psychological projection

btw, the economy was fixed under obama, much like he is also trying to fix the mess created by neocon chickenhawks in the middle east, like an adult

while all the hot headed children do their best to start a war, waste money and lives, and make things worse. you and those like you (hi, netanyu, you protocol disrespecting fuck, you've permanently damaged us-israeli relations for a little temporary macho chest thumping) think more war in the middle east will actually fix things. because you geniuses haven't learned from the last half dozen decades what messing around in the middle east actually leads to

oh, and a small tip for you:

"pinko" expired as an effective insult in the cold war era, which ended 25 years ago, which might be the last time you had a coherent thought on the topic you inject your ignorant belligerence into

Comment: Re:Density is therefore a necessity (Score 1) 182

by fyngyrz (#49161165) Attached to: One Astronomer's Quest To Reinstate Pluto As a Planet

A drop of water can self-form into a sphere by surface tension alone. If that is dropped off in space, it becomes a planet??

Not in my view. That isn't implied by what I said, either. I said mass, and I meant mass. If you dropped your putative drop of water off in space, by the way, by which I mean in a vacuum, I don't think it would be able to hold itself together by any means. I suspect it'd most likely sublimate before you even had a chance to really get into admiring it.

Oh, by the way, our sun orbits the galaxy, does that mean we aren't a planet here on earth because we orbit around something that has its own orbit?

Not to me. Again, I said nothing of the sort, and I implied nothing of the sort.

If not, then why do moons get to be moons when many of them are bigger than the "planet" Pluto, when they orbit around something that has its own orbit around another body?

Moons get to be moons in the context of a solar system; once you step beyond that level of organization, most of us (apparently not you, but that's ok) use different terminology to indicate groupings of stars, gas clouds, supergroupings, and so on.

But hey, don't let me get in the way of your irrational ranting; you've got a good head of steam going there, be a shame to see it peter out too soon.

Comment: Oh, science, is it? (Score 1) 182

by fyngyrz (#49161105) Attached to: One Astronomer's Quest To Reinstate Pluto As a Planet

We see articles about how few people are scientifically literate, and so many on Slashdot decry "We are geeks, we understand science!"

Appearently, nope!

Actually, my dear fellow poster, it is you that does not understand science. Science is a method. Information gathered and suppositions constructed are both data. Such data, particularly when the scientific method is applied, may give rise to (hopefully) more accurate metaphor(s) (more data) as to how nature behaves, and that in turn may let us go a little (or a lot) deeper next time around. Science is a very simple, and beautiful, method.

Back to data. Data is subject to naming, among other things, and those names are (a) abstracts selected for the convenience of the various users, (b) significantly arbitrary, (c) quite often of a dual or more diverse nature (and still 100% correct), for instance "daisy" and "bellis perennis" and "flower" and "that thing that makes me sneeze" and (d) often extend into the metaphorical and allegorical realms in order to further-, and/or better-, and/or simply re-define the issue(s) at hand. This most definitely includes one's own personal or sharable naming conventions and specifics.

When something is controversial or simply not static, we will often see the naming structure(s) and/or system(s) undergo permutation, mutation or even outright replacement. Brontosaurus, apatosaurus, brontosaurids, etc. Those are good examples of names that changed for some pretty good reasons (wrong head on the body... the "brontosaur" was an apatosaurus that mistakenly got a camarasaurus head on it, lol. Now "brontosaurids" means, hand-wavingly, "those long-necked ones" and not much else.) These nomenclature mutations are part of the process of integrating the data into our best-approximation of knowledge about the world, which, coming back around to square one, is not "science" either. Science is a method that we "do." Knowledge is not science itself, although it can and should be used in the undertaking of science.

Further, as the users of the data, objects, information vary, often so goes the terminology. Programmer: "Time for za!" Secretary sent to get it: "Can I order a pizza, please?" counter person: "pie, cheese" artisian: "yet another culinary masterpiece!"... they're all correct. It's not a problem. It's normal and natural. It is still normal and natural if someone in a particular household begins to call pizza "magic goo"... and who knows, it could be what everyone calls it some years down the road. I still kind of twitch when someone says "you suck", because when I was a teenager, that was a deadly insult, worthy of an immediate fistfight. Means something quite a bit more casual today, something absolutely unrelated to its original meaning. And so it goes. Naming is by its very nature a malleable domain. As it should be.

The bottom line here is, just because a few astronomers (and it was very few, btw) voted for a particular usage, does not mean we have to, or even should, comply if we don't agree. I'm sorry if that seems too chaotic for you, but that's really the way it is, and likely always will be, too.

But to decry that because you learned something one way, therefore that convinces you forever, that's just plain stupid.

Well, good thing I wasn't doing that then, eh?

Cheers! :)

Comment: Re:Going my own way (Score 1) 182

by fyngyrz (#49160905) Attached to: One Astronomer's Quest To Reinstate Pluto As a Planet

A protostar, given it's in a seriously pre-fusion state, will (as far as I know) be large enough to have quite decisively pulled itself into a spheroid. If it is orbiting another star, I'd say that at that point, it is a planet and a protostar.

As I see it, protostars seem to refer to a class of planet, just as do gas giants, balls of frozen gasses, molten worlds, rocky, airless worlds, and earthlike worlds. That namespace is a very rich field to till, I think.

Once it lights off, I see it as a sibling (binary, trinary, etc.) by virtue of being stars in thrall to one another's gravity. The star with the greater mass I'd call the primary, the next most mass the secondary, etc.

If it is just sitting out in space by itself, I'd designate it a (rogue) planet and a protostar.

Sure, planets can radiate all kinds of things, for all kinds of reasons. Aurorae, ionizing radiation, IR, UV (some high energy electrical storms do this here), atmosphere, monkeys in tin cans... :) ok, that's pushing the indirection a little hard, but... lol

At this point, I'd say that anything that had lit its fusion lamp gets the designator, quite possibly qualified, of "star." There are various kinds of post-fusion states; neutron stars, black holes, perhaps even just dead cinders and fragments, and of course gassy / radiative remnants resulting from their destruction. Probably lots of other things too. The world, Horatio... etc.

That's all just my own outlook though.

Comment: Re:can't wait to see it work on fox news web site (Score 2, Interesting) 296

by circletimessquare (#49160881) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links

that's a valid complaint

some scientific discoveries go against conventional wisdom and are originally ridiculed. for example, some australian scientists discovered stomach ulcers are caused by a certain species of bacteria in the 1980s. they were rejected, laughed at, people got angry at them. the belief at the time was acid and spicy food formed ulcers. wrong. eventually they won the nobel prize for medicine for their discovery



but this process is mediated by serious researchers who, adhering to the scientific method, are compelled to reverse themselves in spite of their preliminary reactions

meanwhile, we have antivaxxers, moon landing deniers, GM food ignorance, creationists, climate change deniers, fluoride fearmongers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists babbling about burning airplane fuel and steel, etc... assorted douchebag crackpots who are absolutely, undeniably factually wrong, and oftentimes dangerous (to public health, for example), but enthusiastically keep spreading their lies nonetheless

stupid shitbags like this for example are working very, very hard to kill children:


not they they understand their efforts only work to kill children: they're ignorant braindead assholes, pridefully arrogant in their lack of education

so they need to be shut down in other ways. your freedom to be a moron ends when your beliefs put my life and liberty in danger. so thank you, google

google's algorithm would downplay revolutionary new scientific evidence, like the ulcer causing bacterium, indeed. but this is a short time period, squarely in the realm of brand new scientific research, where, after enough weight, change would come quickly, and so to google's algorithm, if it gets its signals from solid peer reviewed journals that present genuine science

meanwhile, lies and idiocy are not peer reviewed and grow like fungus in the dark and will never, ever change

so they need to be buried at the bottom of google as the brain numbing, sometimes genuinely dangerous puerile prideful ignorance they are

I cannot draw a cart, nor eat dried oats; If it be man's work I will do it.