Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:This thread will be a sewer of misogyny (Score 2) 779

by moondo (#48960683) Attached to: WA Bill Takes Aim at Boys' Dominance In Computer Classes

This question hits the nail in the head. The assumption that men and women are or have to be equal in every respect is a notion that requires reexamination. Maybe women in general just find this specific area not to be of their interest, hence there are less women participating. Are there any fields where men are underrepresented where we have to change the law to include them? Ballet or women's studies, perhaps?

Also, does it always have to be about gender equality? I'm so tired how people try to profit by making things issues when they are not. Gender baiting, race baiting, whatever-baiting seems to be this nation's favorite pastime.

Comment: Re:One man's piss is another man's ... (Score 1) 245

by moondo (#48751881) Attached to: Bill Gates Endorses Water From Human Waste

Bill Gates studied the engineering behind it? I am so reassured...

The recommendation of the former CEO of a software corporation (no matter how successful) doesn't really give me that high a level of confidence in the product.

You think Bill Gates is the scientific mastermind behind this invention? Like you said, he's the CEO, the investor, the guy who got inspired to put his money on that project. He's not the brains behind its science. Do you think that the people around Bill Gates would let him drink that water if it wasn't safe or let him make a premature statement about the quality of the water? Most likely scenario is that this project was funded for quite some time and finally they called up Bill Gates to tell him they have a viable product. He goes and tests the product and gets some publicity out of it by drinking it himself.

He has people doing all the work for him. You don't have to trust Bill Gates to know that that water is safe to drink.

Comment: Re:Despicable Greenpeace (Score 5, Insightful) 465

by moondo (#48589521) Attached to: Peru Indignant After Greenpeace Damages Ancient Nazca Site

If they really had no self-interest, as you seem to suggest, then the sign they left in the Nazca site would have just read "Time for change-The future is renewable" without mentioning "Greenpeace" in huge letters. You can't be so naive as to think that Greenpeace simply advocates issues of climate change, anti-oil, deforestation, etc. Their brand thrives on those issues and it's what defines them. Just look at their track record of getting people's attention with publicity stunts... How is that not self-promotion? In marketing terms they are brilliant.

The sad thing about this recent stunt is that Greenpeace is getting a lot of publicity out of it. Their so-called apology to the Peruvian people was a joke. Here's a direct quote from their official apology: "We fully understand that this looks bad... we came across as careless and crass." Looks bad? We "came across as"? They are apologizing that they stained their own image. They are sorry that the world now sees them negatively. In other words, they are expressing that they are sorry for themselves.... How far up one's own ass must one's head be for them to write something like that in an apology to the people of a nation? It should have read "We have no words to express the shame we feel for having acted the way we did." But that would be too humble.

If they are really sorry to Peru they would take part of their operating budget for the next few years to pay for all reparations and maintenance costs of the Nazca site.

Comment: protest against the protesters (Score 1) 1128

by moondo (#48458023) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

Yeah, I get it. Some people are upset with the decision.
But how does that justify looting and destroying other people's property?
How does one make the mental link between the decision of the jury and destroying other people's cars, stores, and public spaces?
Something in that culture has to really change.

Comment: stop imposing your values on others (Score 1) 704

by moondo (#46551333) Attached to: Getting Misogyny, Racism and Homophobia Out of Gaming

Let people express whatever they want to say and whatever they believe in. Stop imposing your values as if you have the moral upper hand. Whatever moral high horse you are sitting on (be it on matters of human rights, religion, homosexuality, racism, misogyny, etc.) it's all make believe: it's just as illusory as the content you are fighting against.

A formal parsing algorithm should not always be used. -- D. Gries