Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The guy completely misses the point (Score 1) 60

by dotancohen (#49614891) Attached to: Accessibility In Linux Is Good (But Could Be Much Better)

The "proprietary" OS features for accessibility are still ridiculously good and have only gotten better while Linux has been playing catch up.

Linux has not been playing catch up, Linux has been falling behind. Due to disability I use Sticky Keys and for a short time there was not a single supported distro in which Sticky Keys was usable. Now that it is usable again, it still has issues, such as if a modifier key is activated, a second keypress will not disable it even with the proper option enabled. I can work around this, but it is still a pain.

Comment: "Only" severely burned. Not for the lack of trying (Score 1) 952

by denzacar (#49613001) Attached to: Two Gunman Killed Outside "Draw the Prophet" Event In Texas

I cannot recall if there were dead though.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10...

PARIS, Oct. 24-Government officials, religious leaders and film directors condemned today an apparent arson attack against a Paris theater that was showing Martin Scorsese's film ''The Last Temptation of Christ.''
The fire Saturday night left 13 people hospitalized, 1 of them in serious condition.

...
Before the film opened, the Archbishop of Paris, Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger, condemned it without having seen it. He said, ''One doesn't have the the right to shock the sensibilities of millions of people for whom Jesus is more important than their father or mother.''

After the fire, Cardinal Lustiger condemned those responsible for what the police suspect was arson. ''You don't behave as Christians but as enemies of Christ,'' the prelate said. ''From the Christian point of view, one doesn't defend Christ with arms. Christ himself forbade it.''

There have also been attacks against a new Claude Chabrol film, ''Une Affaire de Femmes,'' which is about a Frenchwoman who was executed for performing abortions. A viewer died of a heart attack after seeking to flee one theater after a teargas bomb was set off.

Even the "arguments" from the pulpit, both before and after, are the same.
It's almost as if they are coming from the same Abrahamic sources and same cognitive delusions.

Comment: So, all Chinese in US are commies? (Score 1) 952

by denzacar (#49611009) Attached to: Two Gunman Killed Outside "Draw the Prophet" Event In Texas

How 'bout Vietnamese?
Russians? They simply HAVE to be commies.
They all came from commie countries at the time and as such they all must still be commies.
Oh... wait...

They left those countries cause they didn't like conditions there and clearly "being commie among other commies" wasn't their topmost priority.

Or it could be that you're talking out of your ass cause your head is overflowing with shit?
Don't you worry, there's a solution for that too.
Note how that link is about as relevant as yours? Actually... Maybe a bit more as you could put that on your head...

BTW... did you know that when you link vague, unrelated and loaded statements typed into google - that proves nothing?
But it still makes you look like a dick?! No? Well... don't thank me yet. There's more.
Like when you do that double quoting thing, it means that you are informed of and support the point of the asshole above doing the same linking to vague, unrelated and loaded statements and the rest of his dickery.
Which results in most of those results "supporting his theory" being from racist blogs?

So, you're not only full of shit - you're a racist dick by association. Good on ya!

As for Netherlands... Well... for one, your underlying premise is bullshit.
BTW, that's synonymous with "bald faced lying", FYI. So is quoting it, when you clearly show that you COULD check the factuality of those claims but... well... you know...

Anyway, that whole "Netherlands gun violence is high by European standards" thing - that's bullshit.
If we compare gun homicides they are actually rather median and mode for western and northern Europe.
Also, quite negligible and non issue. One guy could rack up twice those numbers in an afternoon.
You wouldn't call that symptomatic now, would you?

Anyway... on to stupid things as Reagan might say.
Sweden - annual firearm homicides total - 2010: 18; Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People - 2010: 0.19,
Norway: 2; 0.04,
Finland: 14; 0.26,
Denmark: 11; 0.20,
Netherlands: 33; 0.20,
Belgium: 36; 0.33,
France: 127; 0.20,
Germany: 51; 0.06,
UK: 33; 0.05.

Feel free to compare later data too, where there is any across all the countries for the given year.
And where there are no outliers like that thing in Norway in 2011, where a lone crazed religious crusader might fudge the statistics of the entire country.

So... Now that we have those 33 deaths by "shooting"...
Onus probandi dictates that you prove your bullshit claims that you've taken up to defend, that:

- ALL those deaths are caused by Moroccan immigrants, i.e. "Them Moroccan gangbangers" as you like to call them,
- further, once you prove that ALL those murders are committed by Moroccan immigrants, that ALL those murderers were also Muslims.
BTW, it's spelled with an I... just so you know... Boy you sure are learning shit today.

Meanwhile, back in reality, back in 2009. there were 341528 people of Moroccan origin in Netherlands.
Meaning that, even if you do dig up those facts, at best you get to say you're not... how you put it... bald face liar.

But your racial and religious prejudice will still shine like a beacon of rectalism.
Cause even if you do manage to scrounge up the data supporting your position, and ALL those murders really WERE committed by Moroccan Muslims - that's still 0.0096% of Moroccan population in Netherlands.

Or do you also argue that EVERYONE in USA is a child molester?
After all... 2012 numbers of reported cases of child sexual abuse in USA come out to 0.019% of the entire population of USA.
And last I checked... that's like twice as many as you and your buddy need to generalize inflammatory statements and attach labels across wast populations.
Son.

Comment: Re:Point proved (Score 1) 299

Wowsers!

You've both missed the point of his friend's "issue" with "why a woman would want a truck".
You actually managed to hit the nail of his friend's logic right on the head but failed to connect the dots.

Why would a woman want a truck?
Women don't need to "carry big heavy things" - that's what they have men for. With their trucks.

I guess it's hard for him to imagine that a woman would have a need to carry large and/or heavy items?

That's EXACTLY right.
Because women have men to do such chores for them OR they have "no such need" and thus do not "own any such vehicle".

It's the part of that whole door-opening, heavy-things-lifting, unscrewing jars, walking on the side of the side-walk facing the street etc. etc. etc. life-long training for men - instigated by the Ladies of 19th century aristocracy whose ideal in life was to marry-up or mistress-up as high as possible while keeping the lower-statured competition down with expensive fashion and ridiculous rules such as which fork to use with which food.
Times and (some) fashions slowly changed but silly rules became culture, good behavior and common sense.
In past generations' defense, how could they have known about trucks and similar marvels of the modern age?

Comment: Correction... tiny, but important one... (Score 1) 299

How many "gender differences affect the experiences" papers can we find that have been rejected because all the authors are male?

And would we even hear about those on account of such "research" being highly corrected for political correctness?

I mean...
I know a guy with a masters in "gender studies" whose ideas about women boil down to "they get ahead by giving head" (exact words were "by sleeping ahead").
At this very moment his Facebook page has the following joke: Domestic violence is when your wife won't give you any and won't let you have any from others.
He is also rather successful in art and culture work, popular with women, once had a suspended sentence for breaking the other guy's limb and has been known to publish on his Facebook page "funny" songs about his real life friends "playing with children".

Comment: Re:this is science, so you have to ask... (Score 1) 299

Nobody tells a paper with only men to get a woman co-author just to make sure gender bias has been properly vetted. Though it may not be a bad idea...

You mean nobody's pushing for more women in science, thus trying to correct for gender bias science-wide instead of doing it on paper-by-paper basis? Really?
Hmm... Must be because women are actually NOT underrepresented in hard sciences and there is nothing to correct for.

Hmm... Something seems fishy about that line of reasoning... can't quite put my finger on it though.

Comment: Re:A problem of reputation (Score 1) 299

Papers should be evaluated *without* knowing who wrote them.

"Blind" evaluation:
Scientist A has a racial bias and his paper shows it.
Scientist A's paper doesn't get published due to the bias shown, he is informed of it, so he either "corrects" the paper and submits it again under another title OR he pays close attention that it does not SHOW in the future.

He doesn't exclude the bias. He can't. It's inherent to his view of the world.
He just "corrects" for it using politically correct terms and similar tools.
Say... writing "impoverished urban youths tend to be criminally inclined" instead of "blacks are thieves".

BUT... as bias is now not obvious, and reviewer doesn't know that it is a paper from a racially biased scientist - paper gets published, along with all future papers by said scientist, raising his credibility as a scientist.
Who can now even quote his earlier work and further build on his racial theories, or allow others to quote his "research" and build their own racial theories based on it.

And the best part is - now he knows that he should HIDE his bias in order to move forward.

Non-blinded evaluation:
Scientist A has a racial bias and his paper shows it.
Scientist A's paper doesn't get published due to the bias shown, he is informed of it, so he either "corrects" the paper and submits it again under another title OR he pays close attention that it does not SHOW in the future.

He doesn't exclude the bias. He can't. It's inherent to his view of the world.
He just "corrects" for it using politically correct terms and similar tools.
Say... writing "impoverished urban youths tend to be criminally inclined" instead of "blacks are thieves".

BUT... as he is now known for racial bias, his papers get additionally scrutinized regarding such bias.
And hopefully, they get rejected on that account.

And since we can associate people with other people and places, his colleagues and his university ALSO get additional scrutiny on account of being closely related to a known racist.

Comment: Re:acceptance is the only fair outcome (Score 3, Insightful) 299

Yes, but you are forming your opinion on the matter from Gawker Media. The chances of you having an informed opinion are exactly 0.

No.
There IS a chance of forming an informed opinion that anything posted under that banner is usually mostly crap.

Chances for unbiased, non-sensationalistic, click-bait, flame-war-inciting troll-posts from Gaw*retch*ker Media ARE very close to zero though.

User Journal

Journal: How to make "mobile-friendly" web pages 2

Journal by mcgrew

I finally got the full texts of Nobots and Mars, Ho! to display well on a phone. My thanks to Google for showing me how, even if the way they present the information is more like trial and error, but it's actually easy once you jump through all their hoops. I'll make it easy.

Comment: Purely primitive... childish... legends. (Score 1) 700

by denzacar (#49577581) Attached to: Pope Attacked By Climate Change Skeptics

âoeThe word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.â

Some Einstein guy said that about a year before he died, back in 1954.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2...

Comment: Re:Yawn... Strawmening and elenchiing now? (Score 1) 285

I am guessing here but I fear two things are limiting this picker to what it is now.

1 - the cost of the thing makes it worth ONLY IF you have a guy doing the sorting while it picks, thus eliminating off-site sorting jobs.

2 - It needs daylight to tell ripe (red) strawberries from unripe (green) ones, leaving the unripe ones for later picking.

1 is an issue of scale and upfront costs, so money fixes that BUT at the cost of favoring large monopolies.
2 is a technical issue. Which may be easily solvable - but with the next generation of he picker.

Like you said. A handful of changes may be needed.

Comment: Re:You're not willing to pay (Score 1) 285

..jobs that are themselves increasingly under threat from automation. :)

Sure... but I was just illustrating the main direction the whole thing is going in.
It is a very skippable step in the process. Just like landline phones in Africa.

Or like the way schools no longer teach calligraphy and penmanship and kids skip all of that 1970s and 1980s and 1990s and early 2000s computer stuff and rush straight into NOW.
Stuff changes, people adapt to new stuff or adapt new stuff to themselves.

Ergo, former pickers are now packers. Do they dream a dream of a life of a packer for their children?
I doubt that.
They are probably not sending their kids to "packer schools" no more than they are sending them to work in the fields like THEY were forced to back in the '50s and '60s.

Comment: Yes it does make a difference. (Score 2) 314

by denzacar (#49570981) Attached to: Feds Say It's Time To Cut Back On Fluoride In Drinking Water

When compared with "real sugar", sucrose in other words, it doesn't make much difference. It's 55% fructose instead of 50%.

HFCS 55 - one used in sodas, is 55 parts fructose, 42 parts glucose.
Sucrose - plain sugar, is 50 parts fructose and 50 parts glucose.

Our brains only measure the glucose intake, cause that is the sugar we start burning the moment it hits the bloodstream. We even absorb it directly through the oral cavity - hence oral glucose gel for diabetics.
When we hit optimal glucose the brain tells the body it had enough.

So, if optimal glucose is (some) 100 parts, that means that using sucrose, one would take in 100 parts of fructose and 100 parts of glucose.
To get to the same level of glucose satiety (those same 100 parts) with HFCS 55, one would take in 131 parts of fructose for every 100 parts of glucose.

Then all that fructose, as Al Green puts it, gets taken to the liver.

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

Working...