Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... (Score 1) 261

by Karmashock (#48687219) Attached to: The Interview Bombs In US, Kills In China, Threatens N. Korea

As to crudeness substituted for cleverness, there is little difference from the old slapstick comedies. The only change is to make the joke dirtier. But the actual cleverness of the joke is generally the same.

Slapstick comedy is actually quite ancient and the jokes are pretty much always the same. You could have watched one 1000 years ago that had jokes of a similar nature.

As to the merits of the interview, that would be making people laugh. And it does... so... you're wrong.

Comment: Political correctness = tyranny (Score 1) 113

The point is to use the quest for equality to justify penalizing anyone who rises above "equal," thus ensuring that all favors get handed out by the state or its ideological fanatic supporters.

This resembles... Communism? National Socialism? Totalitarianism? ...something where the agenda of control has replaced trying to achieve anything. We could have had a moon base by now, instead we will all be equal comrades under the People's Reich.

Comment: Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... (Score 1) 261

by Karmashock (#48686775) Attached to: The Interview Bombs In US, Kills In China, Threatens N. Korea

Perhaps a modern laurel and hardy or three stooges. You're allowing yourself to get turned off too easily by dirty jokes and violence.

The culture has changed to make such things acceptable. If Chaplin or the Marx brothers were making movies today they'd doubtless contain some dirtier jokes then what they told in their day.

You have to compensate for the times.

Regardless, if you're determined to be unreasonable then I can't do anything for you here. The error is yours and the imperfection is yours.

This is what slapstick comedy is in the 21st century in large part because this is what gets people in the 21st century to laugh.

If you did a Chaplin movie today, everyone would find it very boring and it would be a financial disaster.

Compensate for the times and compensate for the genre or you're not judging the movie. Rather you're judging the times and judging the genre. Which is like complaining that there was a lot of blood in a horror movie.

It is an opinion too flawed and confused to be worthy of note.

Comment: Re:Missing the point (Score 1) 188

Maxwell and Newton were one-in-a-million. (if not more) Do we really want to only harness that small a portion of the human race's mind-power? Yes there will always be some who will have found their motivation in the natural world, and don't need any artifice. But is there really a problem with providing inspiring artifice? Does that make contributions those people make worthless? They may well be second-rate compared to Maxwell or Newton, but that also takes in the vast majority of mankind. To do better seems good.

Comment: Re:The idea is interesting but I'm not convinced. (Score 1) 188

Which highlights what I'd really like to see added to the ISS - a farm module. Test a farm module on the ISS, getting the concept ready for a Mars mission. Do we really plan to send something on the order of 2 years of consumables on a Mars mission, recycling only the water? We need much more complete recycling, and we'll need it for any permanent presence anywhere beyond Earth. For that matter the only reason we don't need it on Earth is because we've got this giant biosphere that has handled the details pretty well for us, up until the past several decades.

I rather like the idea of such a farm module even on Earth. No doubt it would be designed for compactness, efficiency, and minimal hand-holding. Sounds good to me - put one of those in the back yard and cut the grocery bills. (I realize that the initial outlay is likely prohibitive, but the idea is neat.) There are also likely places on Earth where such a thing would be worthwhile, say Antarctica or other inhospitable locations.

(Note that I didn't say that a farm module would use sunlight - that might not work for Mars, and probably not beyond.)

Comment: Apples Power Management is very good. (Score 1) 56

by Qbertino (#48686623) Attached to: My laptop lasts on battery for ...

Aside from building the hardware and the OS and making it fit, Apple also builds their own batteries, which, truth be told, are almost second to none. On top of that, Apple was first to dare build a non-replaceable battery into their MB Air. On top of that they put serious custom built power-management into their notebooks. I've got an MB Air myself and after 4 years of usage the battery life still is impressive. Note: I'm not an Apple fanboy either, although I do own the mbair and a 2007 Macmini.

+ - 5,200 Days Aboard ISS and the Surprising Reason the Mission is Still Worthwhile

Submitted by (3830033) writes "Spaceflight has faded from American consciousness even as our performance in space has reached a new level of accomplishment. In the past decade, America has become a truly, permanently spacefaring nation. All day, every day, half a dozen men and women, including two Americans, are living and working in orbit, and have been since November 2000. Charles Fishman has a long, detailed article about life aboard the ISS in The Atlantic that is well worth the read where you are sure to learn something you didn't already know about earth's permanent outpost in space. Some excerpts:

The International Space Station is a vast outpost, its scale inspiring awe even in the astronauts who have constructed it. From the edge of one solar panel to the edge of the opposite one, the station stretches the length of a football field, including the end zones. The station weighs nearly 1 million pounds, and its solar arrays cover more than an acre. It’s as big inside as a six-bedroom house, more than 10 times the size of a space shuttle’s interior. Astronauts regularly volunteer how spacious it feels. It’s so big that during the early years of three-person crews, the astronauts would often go whole workdays without bumping into one another, except at mealtimes.

On the station, the ordinary becomes peculiar. The exercise bike for the American astronauts has no handlebars. It also has no seat. With no gravity, it’s just as easy to pedal furiously, feet strapped in, without either. You can watch a movie while you pedal by floating a laptop anywhere you want. But station residents have to be careful about staying in one place too long. Without gravity to help circulate air, the carbon dioxide you exhale has a tendency to form an invisible cloud around your head. You can end up with what astronauts call a carbon-dioxide headache.

Even by the low estimates, it costs $350,000 an hour to keep the station flying, which makes astronauts’ time an exceptionally expensive resource—and explains their relentless scheduling: Today’s astronauts typically start work by 7:30 in the morning, Greenwich Mean Time, and stop at 7 o’clock in the evening. They are supposed to have the weekends off, but Saturday is devoted to cleaning the station—vital, but no more fun in orbit than housecleaning down here—and some work inevitably sneaks into Sunday.

Life in space is so complicated that a lot of logistics have to be off-loaded to the ground if astronauts are to actually do anything substantive. Just building the schedule for the astronauts in orbit on the U.S. side of the station requires a full-time team of 50 staffers.

Almost anyone you talk with about the value of the Space Station eventually starts talking about Mars. When they do, it’s clear that we don’t yet have a very grown-up space program. The folks we send to space still don’t have any real autonomy, because no one was imagining having to “practice” autonomy when the station was designed and built. On a trip to Mars, the distances are so great that a single voice or email exchange would involve a 30-minute round-trip. That one change, among the thousand others that going to Mars would require, would alter the whole dynamic of life in space. The astronauts would have to handle things themselves.

That could be the real value of the Space Station—to shift NASA’s human exploration program from entirely Earth-controlled to more astronaut-directed, more autonomous. This is not a high priority now; it would be inconvenient, inefficient. But the station’s value could be magnified greatly were NASA to develop a real ethic, and a real plan, for letting the people on the mission assume more responsibility for shaping and controlling it. If we have any greater ambitions for human exploration in space, that’s as important as the technical challenges. Problems of fitness and food supply are solvable. The real question is what autonomy for space travelers would look like—and how Houston can best support it. Autonomy will not only shape the psychology and planning of the mission; it will shape the design of the spacecraft itself.


Comment: Re:Summer vacation is a vestigial remnant... (Score 1) 157

by Karmashock (#48683659) Attached to: Boston Elementary, Middle Schools To Get a Longer Day

Kids do that all year.

As to creativity... Our society values creativity, individualism, and self expression. That is why we tend to show those traits more then societies that discourage those traits. It is not because we have summer vacations.

If summer vacations made people creative then people on welfare that basically did nothing all day would be the most creative people in our society.

They're not though, are they? Why? A lot of that time goes into watching tv and doing other things that are not productive.

You're doing American kids no favors here. They'll be creative whether they have summer vacations or not. We encourage those traits and give many outlets for that sort of self expression. So it is going to happen more then most places inherently. At the same time, we can help them by making sure they have the best education possible.

Studies show that a lot is forgotten during summer breaks and schools have to work very hard to get kids back up to speed. That means you're wasting time not only during the break but also during the actual school year because you have to repair the damage from the break.

Ideally, what you want to do is keep the kids in a near constant educational framework from kindergarten to college. That will maximize retention throughout and potentially allow for as much as an additional year or more of effective education in the same time period. Think of what you could do with that.

Comment: Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... (Score 1) 261

by Karmashock (#48683377) Attached to: The Interview Bombs In US, Kills In China, Threatens N. Korea

Would it be reasonable to judge an automobile by the standards of a submarine? What if I gave a review for a car and started out with the observation that it wasn't water tight to even 1 meter? Or pointed out that when put in the water whether submerged or not it would stall the engine? Or pointed out that its built in sonar system was only capable of detecting objects a couple feet behind it and only when it reversed?

Does any of that sound rational? Obviously not. It is fucking retarded.

And that is what most of the bad reviewers are doing... especially from the newspapers. They're idiot observations like "Dopey and gorey" - the boston globe. No shit, boston globe... it is a screw ball comedy. They're all dopey, you fucking morons.

Or this genius observation: "Has gross jokes" - Star Tribune. Really? Crass humor in a screw ball comedy? That is fucking shocking.

Or how about this idiot comment: ""A silly, sloppy and sophomoric paraphrase Shakespeare, it's much ado about very little. "" - SSG Syndicate. Really? A slapstick comedy that is sophomoric? And anyone even vaguely familiar with Shakespeare knows that the "great bard" wrote lots of stupid comedies that weren't about anything either. Much ado about nothing for example was not especially about anything either. It was a lot of jokes and funny situations stitched together into an improbably plot. Yet this twit ironically cites Shakespeare's play in a pathetic attempt to make herself sound sophisticated. When really all she did was confess a lack of understanding as to the subject matter as well as sound laughably pretentious.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Judge a slap stick comedy by the standard of slap stick comedies. Not by the standards of submarines, computer graphics cards, or women's lipstick.

Comment: Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... (Score 1) 261

by Karmashock (#48683343) Attached to: The Interview Bombs In US, Kills In China, Threatens N. Korea

False. Slapstick comedies have been around for as long as film itself and many of the producers of such films have been amongst the most talented actors.

Imagine if there were a movie where Laurel and Hardy were recruited by the some intelligence service to kill Hitler or something... same thing.

The only people getting upset by this are either people that simply don't like slap stick comedy. Or people that find the political message of the movie disturbing and realizing that criticizing it directly is counter productive... simply attack the movie itself.

I've seen no criticism of the movie that can fall into anything but those two categories.

If you have a problem with the politics as most of the stuffier political types do... then just admit it and we can talk about that honestly. If rather you don't like slap stick comedies... that's fine. However they are a genre of film much like romantic comedies or horror films etc. You judge such films by the standards of their genre. If you are unfamiliar with the genre or unwilling to recognize its own internal rules then you're just disqualifying yourself from having a meaningful opinion.

Comment: Re:this report is inconsistent (Score 1) 127

by radtea (#48682039) Attached to: New Paper Claims Neutrino Is Likely a Faster-Than-Light Particle

This is a scientific paper being written for the author's peers, none of whom would ever misinterpret it. I've seen this issue come up in a couple of places where laypeople are confused by the language of physics.

This is not a problem with the language of physics: it is a problem with laypeople.

I'm all for clear scientific communication, but at the end of the day, communication is hard and worrying about how some random person on the 'Net might misinterpret a term you use every day in your professional work is just not a good use of anyone's precious attention.

When I write poetry I do so in a pretty technical way. If people don't appreciate that, sucks to be them, because they are not my audience. I'm the same way in scientific communication: I write for my peers, and everyone else does the same. Let the popular science authors do the translation. They need the work.

This login session: $13.76, but for you $11.88.