Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re: Women prefer male bosses (Score 2) 399 399

I wonder how many metabolic studies have been done on male-to-female transsexuals. If you start with a dmab with a small frame, you don't have to discard much muscle tissue nor gain much body fat to reach a more efficient metabolic ratio. Plus, you don't have to worry about a menstrual cycle (emotional but also physical competitors) and gynecological health. You can tweak hormonal balance to control muscle mass, so that if you expect to need more heft in a few months,you can engineer just that!
(This isn't a troll, btw, if there's any doubt in anyone's mind)

Comment: Re: Pi? (Score 1) 80 80

22.7 is 2*10^1+2*10^0+7*10^-1.
If you express the same quantity in a bar other than ten, the .7 is no longer going to be a 7 after the decimal point, 7*10^-1. Note that you multiply it by TEN to get the 7 in the denominator of 22/7. In another base, you'd be multiplying by something other than 10, so you wouldn't get 7.

Comment: Re:Ridiculous. (Score 3, Insightful) 914 914

One advantage of having closure is that it greatly reduces the challenges the victim faces going forward.

Some of those reductions in challenges are warranted. Some of those reductions are not.

We, as a society, endorse the concept of innocent victimization: if someone is made to suffer at the hands of another, the sufferer ought not have any further social obligation. For the most part, that's fair.

However, life can never be made completely fair, and I argue it should not be. If such were the case, we would not require any higher level of mental functioning than simple seeking and avoidance behaviors. There would be no point to sophisticated problem-solving, as there would be no complex problems that needed solving. Natural selection seems to favor some species developing higher skills of reasoning, which could indicate that this is an expected consequence of our form of life in our environment. Genetics also provides little incentive to reduce gradual increases in complexity that aren't strictly necessary; indeed, one of the resultant characteristics of this is diversity of life, which as a whole seems to promote the continuance of life in general in an ever-changing environment.

I cannot pretend to empathize with most of the suffering in the world, particularly the more severe forms, but I can say that personally, most of the suffering I have experienced has been challenges providing opportunities for personal growth. I did not always see things this way. I do not want this to read as an endorsement of mild forms of suffering, but merely as a reason to not try to eliminate completely nor balance absolutely the unfairness inherent in the human condition.

There is something to be said for the psychological benefit of having some degree of closure. I do not believe lawmakers should try to enforce the maximum possible closure. I favor the idea of rehabilitation of criminals; in the cases where re-entry to society would be irreducably dangerous, such as strong cases of sociopathy or impaired functioning resulting from traumatic brain injury or genetic predisposition, I would tend to favor restrictions of mobility and physical functioning only as necessary to prevent most of the possible social damage. These restrictions would, to the extent possible, scale inversely with the level to which a criminal seeks to maximize their benefit to society.

Note that, by rehabilitation, I do not wish to imply sudden and unsupervised social re-entry. Rehabilitation is a tricky game that human culture has only begun to play with a modest level of success.

In other words, closure oughtn't be absolute, rehabilitation should be sought when possible, and where it is not possible, an individual's pursuit to integrate with society should influence the degree of their confinement.

Of course, this could all be a crock of shit. I haven't done any deep research into the statistics of recidivism to support my point of view.

Comment: Re:i'd like to see that (Score 1) 393 393

{Well, *I* was thinking of a *prurulent* movie... 2Girls1Cut[OozingPus] ftw! --- Captcha: exotic ---
Okay, that was completely inappropriate.}
On-topic, now: I've found that, thanks to the ubiquitousness of NoScript/NotScript now, many sites are at least mostly usable without JS and Flash---they don't want to turn first-time visitors away by having a site that has zero functionality without scripting, I'm guessing. It's really nice to be able to do almost all my surfing in dillo/links/lynx.

The Internet

+ - Internet-connected Coke machines?->

orangesquid writes: "bsy used to maintain a list of Internet-connected Coke machines as well as other Internet-connected devices of interest. Just about all the links are broken... are there still any Coke machines (or other neat devices, like homebrew weather stations) online, especially accessible by finger? (I'm not interested in any Pepsi machines, for the record. Unless they stock Mountain Dew.) The UCSD Coke machine was part of Internet lore, and is no longer... it'd be great to find some online vending machines to point the younger Internet generation to, as an example of the early development of connecting all sorts of devices to the Internet."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:US Metric System (Score 1) 1387 1387

"0 C - point at which water freezes, 100 C - point at which water boils.

Yep, totally arbitrary. Lets not even start with Kelvin."

Just picking at nits, but, the standard boiling point of water was 0C on the original scale devised in 1742 by Anders Celsius, then 100C from 1743 until 1954 when degrees Celsius were re-defined by the triple point of Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water; then, 99.97C until 1982, at which point it became 99.61C, since the IUPAC decided 1 bar (100kPa) would be a less arbitrary than 1 atm (101.325kPa) as the way of defining standard boiling point. The current definition of Celsius is:
* -273.15 is absolute zero
* 0.01 is the triple point of VSMOW

Those temperatures mentioned above (99.97 and 99.61) are from one wikipedia page ( but the VSMOW page ( suggests the melting point of VSMOW is 0.000089(10) and the boiling point is 99.9839, although ITS-90, used to calibrate thermometers, actually uses 99.974. So, I'm not sure where the 1982 IUPAC resolution comes into play wrt CPIM (and formerly CGPM) definitions. Perhaps the exact definition of VSMOW was different in 2005 when the CPIM made their decree than in 1982 when IUPAC looked at the issue? Wikipedia says VSMOW was created in 1967 as a way of making something more reliable to go by than SMOW, but, it doesn't say if the definition has been adjusted over time (cite note #1 from WP:VSMOW, dated 1995, might be good reading on this, but, I have other things to do right now).

Comment: Re:Windows 7 compatibility mode (Score 2) 313 313

Oftentimes, in industrial settings, a certain instrument has certain certifications. In order to make products that comply with various laws (like medical or automotive components), the materials have to meet certain standards. Legally, they only meed those standards if you can demonstrate that you are making measurements with certified instruments. Frequently it is the case that the instruments are only supported by a proprietary codebase, and the manufacturers do not have a functional app that runs on any modern OS.

In other words, it may cost tens of millions of dollars to "upgrade the app," because you have to re-build parts of your manufacturing process. Sometimes getting a new instrument certified can take years.

This is also the reason why hiring an intern is often not an option. Sure, the intern may be able to hack some code together (of course, then you might have violated reverse engineering statutes or patents on communication protocols or algorithms that process the data from the instruments, so be prepared for tens of millions of dollars to settle out-of-court or buy licensing), but you still have to get everything re-certified---if it's even legal to do so, since you're not using the manufacturer's applications---and re-certifying an old instrument that is using a third-party app may not even be possible, since frequently the manufacturer has to certify that an instrument is working properly and will refuse to work with third-party apps under the premise that they might disclose trade secrets by doing so.

This may sound preposterous, but it does happen. One place I worked finally got rid of their VAXstation 3100 running VMS4 just a few years ago when they upgraded to a new instrument (which costs millions and took years, but they had to do it to run different tests in order to make some different/new products that met certain standards).

As of next Thursday, UNIX will be flushed in favor of TOPS-10. Please update your programs.