Forgot your password?

Comment: No, this is not what the developing world needs (Score 3, Insightful) 89

by nietsch (#46759883) Attached to: Paper Microscope Magnifies Objects 2100 Times and Costs Less Than $1

This is what some uni group thought up to score some charity points with. "look we made an scientific instrument that almost everyone can recognise but almost no-one knows how to use, and made a very cheap & crappy version of it. And since it is cheap, it is good for the poor".
No thanks. Cheap microscopes have been around for ages, probably because some parents think it will help their kid become a smart scientist later in life. None of these are used in the developing world for medical diagnosis, because there is no need for it. Sending millions of these overseas will help almost no-one.
Having access to a microscope does not make you a doctor nor will that allow you to make a reliable diagnosis. You need training for that, and that training is way more expensive than the microscope or other tools you will use. And training/people to train is something that is lacking, not microscopes.
Presenting a technical solution to this social problem will give them praise 'for the good work they do for the poor' but in reality they could have danced raindances in the poor's name to the same effect.

Comment: Re:not really a good comparison (Score 1) 1695

by nietsch (#33524708) Attached to: Rackspace Shuts Down Quran-Burning Church's Sites

What kind of 'fact' is that? it seems to me to be of the opinion kind.
You seem to be so scared shitless by whatever phony news/entertainment you consume, that you think that 'muslims' (probably all of them) will come to kill you with "grenade launchers, sharp knives, bombs, and guns" if you insult their faith. Islam sucks, just as christianity or any other religion (except the holy church of the flying spaghetti monster, off course). What will happen to me now I made this deliberate insult to all these violent religions..?

Comment: Re:That's what they said about the USSR (Score 1) 691

by nietsch (#31494016) Attached to: China To Connect Its High-Speed Rail To Europe

Maybe 10 hours flying, but that is omitting the 4 hours to spend in customs/security checks or whatever the fashion is then.
The reason why America has not electrified a lot of their tracks is just plain costs, it is cheaper only for short-sighted people/managers to run diesels. With electricity, you can build a windmill next to the track for every few kilometres to defray the costs. You cannot do that with diesel, nor can you put more diesel back in the tank when you brake.
Thinking that a diesel lorry is cheaper than a train of them is deluding yourself. Metal on metal contact for the wheels is much more economical, especially combined with the constant motion of a train. The problems/costs rise when the next step in distribution is not adapted or suited very well for train transport. But there are no indications that cannot be overcome with technology.

Comment: Re:Google (Score 0, Flamebait) 354

by nietsch (#31014844) Attached to: Android and the Linux Kernel Community

Well good on ya! Drop it if you like, or make it into a balmerbot and let it throw chairs at your Linus idol, I don;t really care (but I do want to see the vids though:). Linux is available in a LOT of different flavours. The free BSD's however have much less mind and market-share. Yes you may argue OSX is a BSD variant, but there you have a company that is more evil then google IMHO.
Nobody forced them to built on a linux kernel, they choose that one partially because it was Open and Free. On top of that they built an operating system that they could have kept very closed. (The GPL kernel does not imply anything about the licence of the software that runs on top of it), but they chose not to.

Comment: Re:Wow, they trained you good! (Score 1) 507

by nietsch (#30883580) Attached to: Of the following online annoyances, I most despise ...

There are enough pages out there that do not function without javascript. Once you have javascript active, you can surely check if an adblocker is active. You just want to catch the majority. Thus far this majority has been those who do not use adblockers and most advertisers have been ok with that.
This is not a case of a tragedy of the commons, as it is not about a common resource. The publisher is not a common resource, his decisions are not dictated by those who use his services. He can in theory work out a business model that works better then the one he is losing (not making enough) money on. That is not my common responsibility.

Comment: Wow, they trained you good! (Score 5, Insightful) 507

by nietsch (#30868930) Attached to: Of the following online annoyances, I most despise ...

A corporate-led economy needs a lot of middle class people like you that accept their given order/hierachy and try to impose it on others that rebel against it. You seem unaware of the influence advertising has over you and you seem to wish to deny others their right to free themselves of it.
Oh, you say that if I refuse blockable ads, I should just not watch those sites/TV channels/magazines, because after all that is only fair and they would go bankrupt otherwise? My answer to that is that advertisers are not 'fair' at all either, they just wish to maximise their profits and do whatever they can get away with. So why should I act any better towards them? I can get away with using an ad-blocker and they still serve me their content. It is not 'stealing' (another great act of brainwashing that you think it is, denying someone their profit is not stealing -ever), as they can just choose to not serve it to me. They can get away with obnoxious and/or deceiving ads, I can get away with blocking their ads. No need for any moral grandstanding there. It only becomes a moral issue when you start believing in a corporate state where it is amoral to deny the incumbent corporations their profits. It is freedom to not be responsible for the financial welfare of the companies I do business with.

Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.