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


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:No. I disagree. (Score 1) 137

by ScentCone (#49387483) Attached to: Tatooine Youth Suspected In Terrorist Attack

You really want to make the case that America of all countries has clean hands and a clean conscience in this dirty enterprise called war?

Do you mean that when a huge undertaking involving actual, you know, human beings taking action in opposition to a monstrously violent totalitarian regime sometimes involves some of those human beings doing assholish things ... that therefore the side that's acting to prevent oppressive totalitarianism is wrong to fight it? You'd rather allow groups like ISIS, or people like Stalin, or fun outfits like the Khmer Rouge to just carry on being brutal across the board as part of their purpose and policy than risk deploying against them on the off chance that not every action taken to oppose them, by everyone involved in the fight, will pass your purity test? Better to let the house burn down than to risk having anyone involved in trying to put out the fire be a jerk, I guess.

There is still hatred towards the Japanese over what they did

Right. Because that's what they (the country of Japan) set out to do. Cruelty and torture and rape weren't the actions of a few idiots/asshats in the Japanese army, those things were the stated tactics, the official policy, from the top down. That wasn't assholishness by abberration, and prosecuted (a la the WV guards at Abu Ghraib), that was marching orders. Your need to confuse the difference between that, and things like what Japan systematically did in China, shows you to be either completely misguided, or simply trolling. The latter, most likely.

Comment: Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? (Score 1) 231

by operagost (#49387177) Attached to: Why More 'Star Wars' Actors Don't Become Stars
OK, your post is trolling a little bit. But there's a reason Harrison Ford told Lucas, "George, you can type this shit, but you can't say it!" The stories are good, but the scriptwriting is uneven at best. That's why people thought Portman couldn't act. Other than, "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause," her lines were pedestrian and forgettable.

Comment: Not happy. (Score 1) 28

by operagost (#49387053) Attached to: Angry Boss Phishing Emails Prompt Fraudulent Wire Transfers

Come on, where are the copies of these phishing emails? That's the fun part. I'd love to see what kind of process gets people to wire funds without so much as a phone call for confirmation.

- Unsigned emails,
- From an external domain that kinda looks legit (this won't even work with Exchange and Outlook; they will always know it's from a foreign system and notify the recipient),
- Probably with unspecified urgency, without reference to procedure, and no means of tracking the request

Yeah, if a simple phish beat your process, you should find a new career.

Comment: Re:So, should I just read reddit? (Score 1) 108

by sjames (#49387023) Attached to: Thousand-Year-Old Eye Salve Kills MRSA

Actually, since this is a salve to be used externally, internal use isn't a consideration for this formulation. People regularly get that amount of copper on their skin from jewelry (including copper bracelets) Some get a minor rash from it or a green skin discoloration, both much better than MRSA.

What people need is medications they can actually afford. The cost of drugs in the U.S. is shameful.

It should be marketed as a cologne of lotion. That way the rules flip-flop and pretty much if the user's skin doesn't actually come off while applying it, it's A-OK with regulators.

I'm not saying the research shouldn't be done, an internal use form would be good. A concentrated form would be good. But none of that should stand in the way of the known effective salve.

Comment: Re:No. I disagree. (Score 1) 136

by ScentCone (#49386495) Attached to: Tatooine Youth Suspected In Terrorist Attack
When the people who actually drag school teachers out of their classroom to shoot them in the head for teaching girls publish videos of doing so online to show how serious they are about it, you can claim "land grab" and "it's all fake" to your heart's content, but you'll know you're lying, just like the rest of us will know you're lying.

And here in the US, we are told that women are denied the chance at education

Who's "we" and who is doing the telling? There are more women in college then there are men. So, basically you're just blathering.

we are a Christian nation

They "land grabbing" revolutionaries you're complaining about fought, among other things, to tear down the form of government under which they were living ... one that DID establish a government-backed single religion. They were so opposed to that, in the form of the constitution's first amendment, they baked freedom from that ever happening again right into the nation's chartering document. Not that you've probably ever read it or anything.

Comment: Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 0) 1110

by roman_mir (#49386377) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

The right means exactly that: government cannot oppress you and abuse you (and murdering you is a form of oppression and abuse), there is no concept of a 'right' between 2 individuals or businesses and there cannot be, because out of 2 individuals or businesses none of them have any legal authority to dictate to another and/or to use any form of violence. We have to have rights when we are dealing with a government, because government has legal authority to use violence (unfortunately), so to counterbalance that legal authority to violence we have to have rules that prevent governments from just using that violence however they like.

As to violence between 2 individuals or companies, that has nothing to do with rights, that has to do with criminal law as it is understood within that locality. You could have a completely private criminal justice system and still deal with violence that way. People did give up their right to deal with criminal code to governments in most cases, but because the governments are (supposed to be) bound by the rules that are established as individual rights, governments also cannot just pretend to deal with criminal cases without abiding by those rules.

These are completely different issues, a right is about an individual or a company (which I also see as an individual) dealing with the violent government authority and criminal code is about individual and private matters, where individuals are interested in preventing crime committed by other individuals.

Comment: Yes, completely true (Score 1) 111

by DerekLyons (#49386325) Attached to: World's Largest Aircraft Seeks Investors To Begin Operation

*sigh* Do pay the fuck attention.

The statement wasn't about efficiency, it was about the ability to maintain speed over ground. Aircraft (and airships) do need more power to maintain a given speed over ground in the face of a headwind, period. All this bull about efficiency and relative airspeed is just pedantic nitpicking that fails to make you look intelligent.

Comment: Re:No. I disagree. (Score 5, Interesting) 136

by ScentCone (#49386253) Attached to: Tatooine Youth Suspected In Terrorist Attack

I remember when Red Dawn came out (the first one) that we discussed the differnce between freedom fighters and terrorists. The answer was history.

No, the answer is: look at what they're actually fighting for. "Freedom fighters" who fight for the opportunity to deny women the right to go to school, or to set up a regime where people who aren't willing to claim faithfulness to one single state religion are not freedom fighters. It really is that simple. US revolutionaries fought to be free from what was essentially a military dictatorship (the monarchy) that didn't provide some rather important freedom-related features (like those we see protected in our constitution). When freedom fighters are fighting for actual freedoms, then that's what they are. When "freedom fighters" are fighting to institute totalitarian rule (like, say, Che Guevara and company did) they're not freedom fighters at all. The Taliban aren't fighting for freedom, they're fighting to set up a ruthless medieval theocracy. Doesn't matter what they call themselves, it's what they do.

Comment: Hmmm.... (Score 1) 76

Actually, the scary thing is....the same "brilliant" folks trying to negotiate with the new found life forms are the SAME one we currently have trying to negotiate a nuke deal with Iran.

So, sadly...no need for invasion....we'll just be giving ourselves away in the end. SO, be prepared to become an incubating unit web-wrapped to a wall nearby to your home.

Comment: Re:As long as it's not windy (Score 1) 111

by DerekLyons (#49385377) Attached to: World's Largest Aircraft Seeks Investors To Begin Operation

Just to clarify a common misconception about wind and "windage": many people seem to think that wind affects airplanes the same way as cars, needing more power to keep moving in a headwind. That is not the case

True, but misleading - while they don't need more power to maintain speed relative to the airflow, they do need more power to maintain speed over ground. (To "make headway" as the sentence you quoted states.) Airships (and the occasional small HTA craft) have been observed making negative speed over ground while maintaining a positive speed relative to the local airflow.*

So headwinds don't affect the airship any more than it affects a small plane with a cruising speed of 80 kts.

All your irrelevant handwaving bullshit aside, you've left one absolutely vital factor out of your idealized calculation - an airship isn't a small plane. It had a sail area orders of magnitude (or more) higher, which means the effects of a given wind (head, tail, or cross) are much higher than they are for a small plane. While a heavier than air craft might have to increase power 5% to overcome a given headwind and maintain speed over ground, the larger sail area of a lighter than aircraft means it may have to increase power by 100% or more (and it goes without saying that they rarely have that much reserve power).
Or to put it another way, you're wrong. Wind (head, tail, or cross) do affect airships more than they do small planes. Airships can be, and have been, blown all over creation by rather modest winds which a heavier than air craft simply plows right through. The concerns over their ability to make speed over ground (headway) and maintain course are based on observation and engineering reality, not "misconceptions".

*This difference between speed over ground and speed versus local airflow is why aircraft carriers turn into the wind for launch and recovery operations.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side. - Han Solo