Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:There's no reason to go to the moon again (Score 1) 246 246

The reason is to learn how to do it again. Right now the US can't even put astronauts in orbit.

We like to think we *can* but just don't want to. Its a very comforting thought.

This is part of what I don't get. We were putting people on the moon every 6 months from 1969 to 1972. Now it's described as some huge undertaking, requiring all this money and R&D. I'm not saying it's not a huge undertaking. It's sitting a crew on top of a controlled explosion, hurling them into the void and then steering them across 239,000 miles to the moon. It's a big deal, no doubt. But like I said, we were doing it every 6 months for 3 years with 40-year-old technology and materials. So what's the trouble now? Is it simply funding priorities?

Comment Re: More Republican corporate welfare (Score 1) 246 246

Then we all stay here and die. I can't fathom why science enthusiasts can't accept what science has been repeating for decades now: there is no place other than Earth for us in the Solar System and we can't reach other systems. You either accept science even when it brings bad news or you don't. There's no middle ground. And science says: there's a whole universe out there for us to see... But only to see.

We do things now that were impossible 100 years ago. You seem to think that we have discovered all about physics that there is to discover and that what was the case yesterday will be the case tomorrow. Science and history have shown both of those views to be incorrect. I think our aspirations should look beyond our current capabilities. After all, it was once thought that ships heavier than water could not float and craft heavier than air could not fly.

I do agree with your assessment of our leaving this planet, however. I think that given enough time we could manage to do it. But we don't have that time, in my estimation. The problems we must overcome on this planet to forge a sustainable civilization need to be addressed now. We won't have 1000 years to wait, or even 100. In fact I believe that we must produce that stable, sustainable, and peaceful society before we can reach for the stars. We won't be able to put forth such a concerted effort until we are no longer competing and fighting with each other. So saying we must find a new planet because this one will be all fucked up is foolish. We must take care of this one (which is fully within our power, we just have to re-prioritize) because it's the only one we'll have for the foreseeable future.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581 581

What don't you get about free speech?

What YOU don't apparently get is that when we talk about "free speech," we're talking about your speech being free from government infringement. That has nothing to do with private businesses and gathering places. They have the freedom to assemble and conduct themselves as they see fit, without you telling them that they must support, for example, rape/race/kiddie forums, just because you think they should. That's the whole point. If YOU think that's the sign of freedom, YOU can run your own web site where those are the things that are celebrated. The government isn't stepping in to say that Reddit must shut down race-baiting or fat-shaming forums. That's a personal editorial decision made by the people who actually own and operate the site. That you can't make the distinction between government limits on speech and editorial decisions made by private businesses suggests that you should really stop saying anything on the subject, because you're just poisoning the well. Also, please do not vote - you're too uneducated to do it safely.

Calm down. The post was in response to Daemonik sarcastically saying that he's "so glad" that will continue to be a place where kiddie diddlers can discuss kiddie diddling. seems to be more into free speech than That's fine; both are private sites, as you point out, and can make their own editorial decisions. I am actually glad there is a place where kiddie diddlers can discuss kiddie diddling. Not because I engage in that, or in any way approve or condone it, but because it is in line with the ideals and philosophy behind our Bill of Rights. It has nothing to do with private vs. government censorship.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581 581

So glad to know that the defenders of free speech still have a place to share pictures of underage girls, openly discus raping those underage girls, share racist rants and generally discuss how those uppity bitches are keeping men down. Our founding fathers would weep.

I am glad too, because that's actually what free speech is all about. Unpopular or offensive speech is the speech that requires the most protection. Otherwise the thought police will be trying to dictate what people are allowed to talk about. Our founding fathers were smart enough to realize this.

Comment Re: Like the nazi used to say (Score 2) 431 431

And who pays for his medical injuries if he gets injured while trespassing in an abandoned building that may well be structurally unsound or otherwise hazardous?

His parent's health insurance, I would imagine.

There's typically a fence around such structures for a reason. One can laugh at the absurdity of the SWAT team getting involved over chemistry experiments without condoning the previous trespass. And, come to think of it, the SWAT team/bomb squad would never have gotten involved if he had procured his mercury legally.....

I will indeed laugh at the absurdity of a SWAT team being involved over chemistry experiments. Because it is absurd. Since 9/11/2001 we as a nation have been scared of our own shadows. We act like frightened children, lashing out at the slightest indication of the possibility of a threat (and yet ironically not noticing or responding to actual threats). It is alternately amusing and infuriating to me.

Comment Re:trick them into it ... (Score 4, Insightful) 318 318

I don't know why this comment is marked troll, because it's absolutely not a troll, it is the absolute truth. I have had the EXACT same experience. I get an average of 2-4 recruiters contacting me with offers each month. I've worked hard on honing my skills, I've worked hard on networking locally/regionally, I've worked hard to ensure that my resume is up to date and relates my track record well, etc. Lumpy is exactly right. If others reading this think that he's bragging (and that's why they marked it a troll) they're missing the point. I cannot tell you the enormous difference in negotiation when you are confident (not arrogant) and put yourself in a position where people know you before you walk in the room. It's not that hard to do, and it absolutely puts you in the driver's seat.

I'll tell you the same thing I told Lumpy. You seem to be saying that all one needs to do is be a superstar. Superstars are, by definition, a small percentage of the population. We cannot all do this. The vast majority cannot do this. Therefore it isn't really valuable advice. A goal to shoot for, absolutely. But if the key to success is to be in the top 10%, it leaves out the other 90% by definition.

Comment Re:trick them into it ... (Score 1) 318 318

People dont understand that.

It's why I am fending off job offers monthly. I have a skillset that is in very high demand and I am in a field that has never had a lot of people in it.

All of this makes you an outlier by definition. You don't seem to understand that. Can we all be in the top 10%? I don't think so.

This is what always gets me about this type of example. You seem to be saying that all one needs to do is have a rare skill set in a field that has few people in it. Well that's great, but it is something that only a relative few people can do. If more people did it, the field would have more people in it, the skill set would be more common, and you wouldn't be getting calls every day.

Comment Re:A driver's license can cost thousands (Score 2) 318 318

How is that feasible when it reportedly costs $6,000 for a driver's license? Some jurisdictions reportedly require 120 hours of logged supervised driving on a learner's permit before they will issue a license (source), and not everybody has parents who both drive and are willing to sit in the car that long. At $50 per hour for a professional instructor, it starts to add up.

Thank God. In America anyone who can avoid crashing into things during their test can get a license. It's stupid easy, with the emphasis on stupid.

Comment Re:In short? (Score 1) 318 318

How about a commute that's easily over 1.5 hours each way every day? Sitting still on highway 95 at 4:00 in the afternoon is about as far away from a brain clearing exercise as I can imagine. There's nothing better I'd rather do than literally waste 3+ hours a day with the other worker bees.

Fuck that. I would have to be desperate for a job to take one that is over 1.5 hours away. I know some people are indeed desperate for a job, but otherwise I would not waste so much of my day. Hell, I pay for a monthly parking spot in the city just to cut my commute from an hour and 15 to 30 minutes.

Comment Re:The most idiotic story in the world (Score 1) 217 217

If being rich is your only measure of success than Bernie Madoff is a big success. How ironic you end your rant with the name Jesus since he was, by all accounts, a total failure dying penniless on the cross.

This is America; success is measured in dollars. Bernie Madoff was a success, until he turned himself in to the authorities. Modern Americans would step over Jesus and tell him to get a job.

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein