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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Doesn't rely on carbon or oxygen? (Score 2) 69

by meglon (#49154247) Attached to: Methane-Based Life Possible On Titan
That kind of stumped me too; if it's replacing O2 with methane for respiration, that line really makes no sense. I put it down as the summary writer mistaken a phrase in the article as saying the cells were nitrogen bases, as opposed to carbon based... which isn't actually what the article says.

That said, the idea of using a different base for respiration doesn't really require much imagination. We use oxygen because that's the environment we evolved in; any life evolving in an atmosphere without oxygen will use something else. Even advanced life forms could use non-oxygen molecules for respiration, the only requirement being that whatever their circulatory system used could bind with, and carry, the molecule (making the very limiting assumption that their system would work similar to ours).

We have on our planet microbes that do not respirate oxygen, and are in fact killed by an oxygen atmosphere. Our advanced oxygen breathers are not even limited to a single carrying element. Sure, the land O2 users have iron based blood, but there is O2 "breathing" sea life that has copper based blood (and no, it's not green.... Roddenberry got that wrong), and others with a copper/vanadium hybrid based blood (which is green, but a bright yellow green).

Life will use what's available; no oxygen... probably not problem.

Comment: Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment (Score 1) 317

by meglon (#49124179) Attached to: FedEx Won't Ship DIY Gunsmithing Machine
from the AC:

Just how safe are rights such as gay marriage when ones explicitly protected by the US Constitution are ignored?

Because the entire point of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure the government didn't outgun the population.

For obvious fucking reasons.

Note the word "explicitly" in his comment.

my response:

Which "explicitly protected" rights have been ignored here? Please cite the exact phrase in the Constitution/Bill of Rights that mandates Fed-Ex ship his packages.

Thank you for pointing out that i am correct.

As for the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, shipping something via Fed-Ex may, or may not, be covered under that (i would make the base assumption that a package sent strictly "fed-ex ground" probably is, but that gets into a lot of details that not only am i not privy too, but i imagine could change at any given time in the shipment of any given package); it may well be covered under the umbrella of domestic air carriage. Interestingly enough, those rules don't apply to domestic air carriage because of deregulation in the past 30-40 years (i personally find that to be humorously ironic in this specific situation).

Comment: Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment (Score 0) 317

by meglon (#49122825) Attached to: FedEx Won't Ship DIY Gunsmithing Machine
Which "explicitly protected" rights have been ignored here? Please cite the exact phrase in the Constitution/Bill of Rights that mandates Fed-Ex ship his packages.

As for your stupidity regarding the second amendment: the second amendment was adopted to ensure that members of the state militias had weapons should they be called up.

Comment: Synopsis (Score 5, Insightful) 674

by meglon (#49108861) Attached to: Bill Nye Disses "Regular" Software Writers' Science Knowledge
Whoever wrote the lead-in either can't read, doesn't understand basic English, or is a semi-science-literate who's butthurt for being called out as one. Nye hit's it pretty much on the head in his assessment... we have some fantastic scientists in this country, but they are surrounded by a huge morass of people who are intentionally ignorant and outright hostile to anything remotely intellectual; we need more scientists in this country, and less stupid.

Comment: Re:It was U.S. government supported FRAUD. (Score 3, Insightful) 180

by meglon (#49027119) Attached to: US Gov't To Withdraw Food Warnings About Dietary Cholesterol
I would suggest that, once again, things mentioned as "government fraud" are actually that great free market taking advantage of a situation. The "government" doesn't market products as gluten-free, low-fat, or reduced fat, nor do they go around throwing extra water and various thickeners into foods.... private companies do. So while the government puts forth guidelines to help people based on the CURRENT best nutritional science, it's PRIVATE COMPANIES who do everything you're blaming the government for.

Tell you what though, that big nasty corrupt government also has guidelines for the limits of pesticides, arsenic, and all sorts of toxic substances found in your drinking water too. If you want to really impress on me how much you think our government is always wrong, please be my guest to start drinking water with massive amounts of those things in it, and get back to us in a month of two.

Comment: Re:Unsettling science (Score 4, Insightful) 180

by meglon (#49027101) Attached to: US Gov't To Withdraw Food Warnings About Dietary Cholesterol
I can't tell if you're trying to be funny, or if you are actually as stupendously ignorant about science as you're post portrays you to be.... it's very hard to tell in writing. I generally try to give people the benefit of doubt, but i get the vibe you're not trying to be funny.

Science is based on observation and experimentation. What that means is, the more exacting observations we make, and the more fine tuned our experimentation, the more precise our knowledge becomes... that's pretty basic, 4th-6th grade level science. If you want something that once said never, ever changes, regardless of new information, then stick to religion.

Comment: Re:Freedom ends at my nose (Score 1) 740

by meglon (#48972555) Attached to: New Jersey Gov. Christie: Parents Should Have Choice In Vaccinations
At the point people start using fallacies like you have, and simply showing their true colors as someone who hates being told what to do by anyone (similar to a petulant two year old), i can safely say my statement was wrong:

Sadly, they've sorely underestimated the level of stupidity involved.

Clearly that should have read: Sadly, they've sorely underestimated the INCREDIBLE level of stupidity, INTENTIONAL OBSTINANCE, AN SHEER HEAD-UP-ASSERY involved.

If you don't understand why there's a program to compensate people who have negative reactions to vaccines, you shouldn't talk about it.... it makes you look stupid. Go use that brain you (might) have, and learn. Just to be clear though... if a child needs to go to a doctor, and the parent doesn't take them... yes, the child should be removed from the parent; not because i think government needs more power, but because the parent is intentionally failing to do THE BIGGEST FUCKING JOB of being a parent.... keeping their child safe and well. Those parents should also be arrested for child abuse.

Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.