Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Can't eat Internet (Score 1) 74

Do you have Aspergers? Or some heretofore undiscovered textual version of Turret's Syndrome? Reading just the first screenful or two of your recent comments leads me to believe that you do. Either that or you're just some shitty troll refugee from 4chan who couldn't cut it in that particular jungle. I'm honestly surprised that you're not posting as an Anonymous Coward. Oh, and before you protest my attacking you personally? You're the one that insulted me, so go fuck yourself, OK?

Comment: Re:Can't eat Internet (Score 1) 74

You can't compare any disaster like Katrina in this country (a 1st world country) to the everyday conditions in a 3rd world country where people are starving; there is no food to distribute so what does it matter if there is commication to help distribute what doesn't exist?

You're ignoring my point about the local warlords. They already have money to spend because they take it from whoever they want. The warlords will be the one with the internet, not the civilians who, again, have nothing and will continue to have nothing so long as there is a para-military around to keep taking everything from them and killing them, so all you're really doing is creating a wide-area communications system for the warlords and their troops.

Comment: Can't eat Internet (Score 1) 74

People are living in (comparatively speaking, anyway) shithole ghetto countries with an extremely low standard of living, and you want them to get the Internet? Expensive Internet, at that? What the actual fuck? Only the 1% richest people in these 'equatorial regions' will end up with access, the poor will still be fucking poor and in many places starving. How about you invest that money in getting rid of local warlords, drug cartels, corrupt governments, and other assholes that profit from keeping people down and out so they can live high on the hog? How about you invest that money in helping people to improve their lives? This makes no sense whatsoever, unless you factor in the 'publicity' factor; I'm sure these assholes think it makes them look real humanitarian and all that crap to the rest of the world. I call bullshit on the whole thing.

Comment: Stupid and misguided AT BEST (Score 1) 109

by kheldan (#47431085) Attached to: Google's Experimental Newsroom Avoids Negative Headlines
"Hey, let's blatantly spin the news by using out-and-out censorship!". Fuck you Google, what the hell do you think you're doing? The news is the news, good, bad, or indifferent. It is the duty of a news agency to report the news, not filter it. What you're doing is no different than some government propaganda engine.

Comment: Re:Climate Change on Slashdot? Bring on the fun! (Score 1) 387

by kheldan (#47424101) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis
Oh, come on. Unbelievable as it is, there are reasonable, intelligent people on the Internet.

This is what I've been saying: You're not going to convince people to give up their personal transportation and take buses and trains everywhere, and it's not practical for every single person to ride a bike, either, and if I have to explain that one to you then you need to sit back and think a while longer before saying anything because the reasons are obvious (I'm a cyclist by the way so it's not like I'm anti-bicycle). Electric vehicles are going to have to be the way. We charge them with nuclear power generation plants. We make those safe by some serious and hard-line reforms in the way they're designed, constructed, and especially in how they're managed, to make them as safe as possible, instead of letting the bean counters cut corners because it's 'good enough' when they don't know what the hell they're even doing. We continue developing higher and higher efficiency photovoltaics. We continue working to unlock the secrets of fusion power. Maybe we even unlock higher-order mysteries of the Universe and find other, more exotic sources of energy to tap into. Meanwhile we're running out of fossil fuels anyway so everyone had better get on board with all this now and beat the rush later.

Comment: Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much. (Score 1) 301

by kheldan (#47416319) Attached to: Wireless Contraception
Oh, no, not at all. If anything I feel sorry for actual religious people because by large and far they're being used, manipulated. I'll put aside my personal belief that they'd be better off putting aside their superstitions and learning instead to stand on their own, but the fact of the matter is that their own spirituality is used as a lever to manipulate them into doing the will of a few religious leaders who only have money, power, and control on their minds. This is not to say that on the local level there aren't low-level leaders who actually *believe* in what they're preaching, but that unfortunately just makes them, to borrow from the Russians, 'useful idiots' for the cause of the higher-ups. It's the exploitation of what I perceive as a fundamental flaw in the human psyche, something that I dearly hope we grow out of sooner rather than later, before it wrecks the entire human race.

Comment: Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much. (Score 1) 301

by kheldan (#47415073) Attached to: Wireless Contraception
The 'be fruitful and multiply' thing may ostensibly be the reason, but having as many people part of a partiucular religion is what's attractive to the leaders of said religion. More people under their sway means more power overall in the world; if the population of your country becomes, say, theoretically, 80% Catholic, then what do you think that's going to do to public policy in that country? Similarly, what if the vast majority is some flavor of Muslim? Overrunning a country with sheer numbers because you're encouraged, one way or another, to have as many children as possible may be a long game, but it's an effective one. You're a particular religion, you have 10 kids, you raise them all to be that religion. Over the course of a few generations you have a large effect on the total population, and that starts to affect politics. Don't confuse religion with spirituality, either. Organized religion, at it's highest leadership levels, is about power, control, and money, and has been for a long, long time now.

Comment: Why would you do that? (Score 2) 464

I'm not even a pilot, but I think I understand the mindset of pilots well enough, having known a few: In the event of mechanical (or system) failure(s), any pilot is at least going to want to be able to peer out a window with his own two eyes to see what's going on. It's a backup system that is hard to cause failure in: If the windshield is shattered to the point where you can't see out of it, then you've got worse problems than not being able to see! This sounds like something some non-pilot (or worse, marketing monkey or bean-counter) came up with. Or maybe, just maybe, they're patenting it for the sole purpose of preventing anyone from doing anything this dangerous and stupid with airplane design?

Could we have some actual licensed experienced pilots please join this conversation? I'd like to know what you think about this, please.

Comment: Re:what's in a name (Score 1) 142

by kheldan (#47390973) Attached to: Autonomous Trucking
If this becomes a reality in the U.S. during my lifetime, I sure as fuck hope they're sitting there in the cab, supervising the onboard systems, ready to take over when (not if, but when) it fucks up. Autonomous cars are a scary enough idea to me, but 40 tons of truck travelling at highway speeds, with no one in the cab? Oh, hell no..

User hostile.