Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:More religious whackjobs (Score 1) 244

by lgw (#49604395) Attached to: Native Hawaiian Panel Withdraws Support For World's Largest Telescope

Are you being deliberately obtuse? No one has the right to compel these gentlemen to do anything, or take their land, just as they have no right to set the use of anyone else's land. If, however, this is public land (as seems likely), then the government gets to decide what to do with it.

I don't know what their beef is anyhow - build the damned thing on top of the volcano, and if the freaking volcano god doesn't like it, well, I'm sure He'll think of something.

Comment: Re:More religious whackjobs (Score 1) 244

by lgw (#49603877) Attached to: Native Hawaiian Panel Withdraws Support For World's Largest Telescope

When a nation turns its back against God, the church, and its citizens (abortion), it is all down hill from there.

I'm sure you're right. Which god again? I know I don't believe in 9999 of them, but I sometimes forget what the one is that I don't disbelieve. If these religious whackjobs are elected leaders, and represent the will of the majority, then that's that - doesn't matter why they believe. But if they're some vocal minority trying to use the state as a weapon of their religion, that's clearly not religious freedom, is it?

Comment: Re:More religious whackjobs (Score 1) 244

by lgw (#49603865) Attached to: Native Hawaiian Panel Withdraws Support For World's Largest Telescope

So what part of "land owners or majority in a democracy" was unclear to you? People are free to believe in whatever invisible sky grandfather makes them happy, and do with their own land according to those beliefs. But trying to block construction on someone else's land, or on public land if you're not the majority, is the opposite of religious freedom - it's using the state as an instrument of religion.

Comment: More religious whackjobs (Score 4, Insightful) 244

by lgw (#49601433) Attached to: Native Hawaiian Panel Withdraws Support For World's Largest Telescope

More religious whackjobs blocking progress. If they own the land, or represent the majority in a democracy, so be it; otherwise a does of "separation of church and state" would be welcome here. No one should get a free pass on being a religious whackjob simply because they aren't a Christian whackjob.

Comment: Re:She has a point. (Score 5, Insightful) 523

by lgw (#49601047) Attached to: My High School CS Homework Is the Centerfold

But teenage girls are not the biggest fans of pornography sites

This Victorian attitude that centers on the idea that women don't like sex just needs to die. Teenage humans are fans of pornography sites. Different strokes for different folks, of course. When a man and a woman both get drunk enough to lower their standards enough to actually get laid, this is not "rape culture", dammit, because men and women both are interested in sex. It's not "lie back and think of Britain" for fuck's sake.

Only from TFS did I learn where this image came from: having first seen it in an age where 16-bit (and even 8-bit) color palettes were the norm, I just assumed it was chosen for the purple feather, the details of feather and hatband and hair (which emphasize compression artifacts) and the human face, which we're very good at seeing distortions in. It just seemed like a challenging photo to compress in the days when jpg was too heavyweight for most PCs.

Still seems like a perfectly reasonable test image.

Comment: Re:EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing (Score 1) 344

So, let me get this straight. Right-wing government employees are saying the bill is good, while left-wing government employees say it's bad? So, by my model, the bill must either reduce government spending, or reduce government power over people. Given the current GOP, the former is right out, and it's the latter. How am I doing so far?

Comment: Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score 1) 694

by lgw (#49585471) Attached to: Pope Attacked By Climate Change Skeptics

I rather expect I've spent far more time researching this than you. But you've at least looked at the Vostok ice core data, right? You know it's normal to have a spike in temps every 100 k years, usually followed by a sharp decline and return to glaciation, but for some reason that didn't happen 10 k years ago, and we've had a very unusual stable period of climate? And that the mechanism for all this is still mysterious, with hypotheses still at the "maybe this would fit the data" stage?

Absent human activity, a return to glaciation would fit the historical data. But you knew that right? You're not just saying fashionable things, surely. Maybe you just prefer kilometers of ice covering most the land area over rising waters - I guess that's a personal preference

Climate science is still in it's infancy, the climate itself is a chaotic set of feedback cycles upon feedback cycles, and we've only started modeling the simplest stuff. Political posturing and demagogy is ancient and well-studied, however.
 

Comment: Re:EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing (Score 0) 344

ut it is to almost everyone who has actually looked at it with a scientific eye.

So then, forcing the EPA to base that decision on publicly available science (actual peer reviewed papers and such), is fine then, right?

I don't think this bill is anything to do with global warming - the EPA has over the years pissed off many, many people by telling them they can't build on their own land "because reasons". It's one thing for the EPA to tell you the land you own is nearly worthless because "here's the established science that says your land use would hurt everyone else", most people are fine with that, but when they say "we're not even going to tell you why, we're basing it on secret stuff" is seriously not the kind of government America should have.

Comment: Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score 1) 694

by lgw (#49580213) Attached to: Pope Attacked By Climate Change Skeptics

Hell, I'm not even sure we're screwed. I believe that the most probable future is the return of glaciation in the ongoing Quaternary Ice Age, and we'll be glad of all our CO2 to keep the glaciers out of Central Europe and the US for another century or two once it starts. One things for sure: the economic damage from a significant drop in temp (which we're 10k years overdue for) is worse than the equivalent rise in temp. For all that rising sea levels will suck, glaciers covering most of the temperate zones is worse.

Comment: Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score 1) 694

by lgw (#49578971) Attached to: Pope Attacked By Climate Change Skeptics

That's not even the right question. The right question is: how much money will we save by reducing CO2 emissions by X, to at least 1 significant figure of accuracy? How much will it cost to make that reduction, to at least 1 significant figure of accuracy?

We don't know shit when it comes to that sort of prediction, and without that, policy is pure fashion statement and political posturing, not science-informed.

Comment: Re:Nonsense (Score 1) 125

Right, it's the kind of immersion that matters. Now if we could only get movies where the characters weren't 2-dimensional. "The goggles, they do nothing!"

I don't need peripheral vision to feel part of a game world, as long as I can look around the world from a first-person or over-the-shoulder view (it would help a lot in racing games, since there your too busy with other controls to also look around with your hands). It's been ambient noise, clever soundtrack, and attention to detail (so that you can guess what the place smells like, and are happy not to much of the time) that provide immersion of any sort- I'm not just my eyes.

"One Architecture, One OS" also translates as "One Egg, One Basket".

Working...