Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Limited unlimited (Score 1) 106

The point behind "unlimited" plans is that the extent of the subscriber's own usage, by themselves, will not impact either how much they need to pay for the service, or what levels of service they may have formerly used, but be restricted from utilizing in the future.

Simply put, whenever any metering of their usage which may occur is used strictly for reporting purposes, the adjective "unlimited" can reasonably be construed to apply. The fact that there may be physical limitations on their usage independent of that is irrelevant.

Comment Re:I don't actually have a problem with this.... (Score 1) 453

No.... you cannot treat a psychosomatic disorder by playing along with them. You need to be honest with the sufferer and tell them where the problem actually lies, but at the same time, you have to offer them some hope that with help and time, they can actually overcome the condition. Belief and recognition that the problem is basically being caused by misfiring signals from their brain, and not by any actual external phenomenon that is telling their body to react in ways it should not is the first and probably most crucial step to overcoming such problems. Patronizing the delusion that it is actually caused by something external to them would be likely to only make the condition worse, even if you tried to offer a "treatment".

What the person needs to do is learn how to discern when their brain is telling them these wrong things, and basically has to train themselves to ignore it. Much of this happens subconsciously, so it takes time, sometimes months or years, but psychosomatic disorders are definitely something that people can learn to overcome.

Comment Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score 1) 489

The blood analysis supports that the donor was male, and was apparently also the right race to have been from that region of the world. It is at least plausible that Jesus was the donor, but of course, only if there were any errors in the dating process.

One of the most interesting points I find about the image on the shroud, the wounds in the hands on the image were actually situated at the wrist or base of the palms, whereas practically all other contemporary depictions of Christ's crucifixion at the time often represented him as having nails through his palms. It was many hundreds of years later before this commonly held view was discovered to be an inaccurate perception of crucifixion by contemporary culture, and in fact, when nails were used in crucifixion (typically they were not, but in Jesus case, they apparently were), the nails driven into the very base of the palm, at a person's wrist. If the nail were actually driven into the palm, the flesh would simply tear free as the person hung there, possibly even falling off of the cross entirely. The fact that the shroud's image faithfully represents an image of somebody who was apparently crucified by such a torturous means consistent with how it would have actually been done, and contrary to what people would have expected at the time is no small consideration to lend credibility to the shroud's authenticity.

Consider also that the image itself is not even really visible to the naked eye, today requiring imaging technologies that were only invented in the past couple of hundred years to resolve any serious level of detail. if the shroud was a fake, "expert forger" is an understatement... he would have had to produce the image almost completely blind.

Coupled with the fact that today there is still no real consensus on how that image could have even been constructed gives at least some credibility to the notion that the shroud is genuine, and suggests that the interpretation of the dating analysis performed in '88 was incorrect. Hardly definitive, of course... but something to at least give a sketical person pause, as long as they genuinely want to keep an open mind.

Comment Re:I'm sure they are right.... (Score 1) 189

They reason EV's haven't contributed much to CO2 reductions is because there isn't enough of them. They represent but the a tiny fraction of just 1 percent of the total number of vehicles out there.

Between that and the fact that much of the main power grid, from which electric vehicles ultimately derive their power, is still often using less than environmentally friendly approaches to power generation, it is hardly surprising that EV usage has not contributed very much to CO2 reduction. The fact that it has produced as much reduction as it actually *has* speaks volumes to how much of a difference it could make if such vehicles became the norm instead of the exception.

But yes.... it will be expensive. Believing otherwise is only putting idealism ahead of realism.

Comment I'm sure they are right.... (Score -1) 189

... in the very long term.

... like *VERY* long term. Like maybe over the next 500 to thousand years or so (and talking in 2015 dollars, of course).

In the short term, however, I am fairly confident that successfully slowing global warming will cost a pretty tidy penny itself.... and because of the amount of money that will have to be spent over a relatively short time scale, I expect it puts it well outside of what is anything remotely tenable to accomplish in anyone's lifetime living today barring that we don't make some revolutionary breakthrough which can reduce the cost of doing so by at least 2 or 3 orders of magnitude.

Comment Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score 1) 489

The tomb you refer to, The Talpiot Tomb, has not been irrefutably shown to be the actual tomb of Jesus. A case was made for it by a pair of journalists in the first decade of this century that it might somehow irrefutably show that Jesus had not risen from the dead, but the translations that the journalists claim to have made and the so-called evidence that they have which supports their allegations has been since subject to much dispute by archeologists and linguistic scholars alike [1] [2]. The matter is clearly far from settled. Of course, it's very easy to say that the devout might continue to believe even in the face of scientifically irrefutable evidence, but even if that statement were true (which I do not refute), it does not leave science free and clear of any obligation to discover the truth.

The existence of the Aether was disproven through scientific experimentation, so it is wrong to conclude that science cannot disprove things, as long as whatever assumptions you have made about what you may be attempting to disprove are coherent enough to form such experimentation.

For what it's worth, I believe the Shroud may be genuine... but I believe it may be so only because science has not yet been able to determine how the image was made. Even if it shown to be a fraud, however, does not mean that the incident did not happen... it only means that some charlatan tried to artificially lend more credibility to what they were saying than they may have deserved. Even a liar can be telling the truth, after all. Although I'll agree that doesn't help the case for Christianity any.

Comment Re: I don't want a fucking TV channel! (Score 4, Interesting) 273

They can get cancelled even if you *DO* contribute to their ratings...


I was in a Nielson household once... from about '99 to '04. When a show that I really *really* liked ended up getting cancelled after barely more than half a season, despite me and my wife and 4 kids watching it every single week starting with the pilot, I ended up cancelling our participation in January '04, and had them take their equipment back. I know that it's not Nielson's fault that the show got cancelled, of course.... but that experience with trying to participate in their ratings program, and *STILL* seeing a show that I really liked get cancelled before it could even get started was very discouraging, and I kind of stopped seeing the point.

Comment Help (Score 1) 774

With enough capital to retire off of, I'd probably use whatever was left to help people, to the extent that money can.

Maybe build an apartment building that wasn't being run for-profit to keep rent down for low-income families or something like that.... having come from one myself, I know how much of a difference the availability of stuff like that can make.

Comment Re:You keep using that word. I don't think it mean (Score 1) 301

I have no problem with metered usage in general.... I also have no problem with any so-called unlimited plans either, but I'm suggesting that such labelling would only be justified when any such "unlimited" plans are designed such that any metering that may occur on them is strictly for reporting purposes, and does not actually affect what services or levels of service they are entitled to receive, or how much they pay for that service.

Their services may still be limited by things such as network bandwidth or how many other people are using the service at the same time, but such limitations are physical ones that would exist for everyone anyways, even if their usage were not being metered at all. It is only when the *metering* of usage is used to impact the amount that must be paid, or the level or quality of service being offered for the fees that are being charged that the term "unlimited" cannot reasonably be construed to apply.

Comment Re:You keep using that word. I don't think it mean (Score 2) 301

I would think most users would be entirely happy with "unlimited" simply meaning that any metering of their usage that may occur would not be used to either limit usage, nor to determine how much additional fees to charge them beyond whatever level of service they paid for.

Any limits that might exist on their usage would be strictly a consequence of whatever the technology is capable of based on how the network is actually being used, not only by them, but by all subscribers at the same moment that they are using the service.

Of course, if too many subscribers are trying to do too much at once, the network can potentially become unusable for all of them.... much like if too many people are calling the same phone number at the same time then it can sometimes happen that none of them may end up getting through. That doesn't mean that their individual usage isn't unlimited, however.

When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing," it's the money. -- Kim Hubbard