Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:But they're not white, so it's OK (Score 1) 338

It's a shame the term is so meaningless that you probably believe it as strongly as someone who believes that you are an SJW (after all, you advocate for transgender people) believes that you are one too.

Be honest: it's a meaningless term, usually applied by anyone who feels uncomfortable about their own racism or sexism (or other prejudices), applied to anyone who made them uncomfortable in any way. If I say "Isn't it a shame the average, well qualified, woman is going to have to fight harder than the average, average qualified, man to get and hold on to a job in IT", it's a simple observation, but I'll get labelled an SJW as a result.

And you? Well, you personally might not. I don't know. You know I'm fairly left wing, and sympathetic to the plight of minorities, but I'm also happy to say when I think people are unfairly demonized, such as Pax Dickinson or the parents of Leelah Alcorn (and to a certain extent you and I had disagreements on the latter, which doesn't surprise me.)

So, given that, what's the point of using the term? Is it used, in practice, for any real life use other than shutting down debate? "OMG! This person suggested I might have certain advantages in life that aren't available to black people, let's call him an SJW and then nobody will take him seriously!"

'cos that's how I see it used. It might, once, by some people, have been used to denote a particular type of over-zealous and highly obnoxious troll who used social justice issues as their weapon, but it doesn't today, and when you use it on Slashdot, you use it in an environment where virtually nobody is referring to those trolls. You're using it in an environment in which it'll be read, and understood, as referring to feminists, civil rights activists, LGB(T*) activists, and, transgender activists, regardless of whether they're hysterical, or just do passive, entirely optional, advocacy, say, in the forms of videos explaining carefully how they feel movies or video games could be improved so that they're not unintentionally a problem for many women.

Comment Re:What should happen but won't (Score 4, Funny) 839

I'm sure (s)he's now totally changed their opinion on the nature of the political right after reading your well thought out and well argued post.

Anyway, can we stop with all of the anger for a minute and remember that a human being just died here? Show some respect. Regardless of whether or not we agree with his positions, there are people out there who loved and cared about this man. My condolences go out to the Koch brothers for their loss.

Comment Re:10% more transmittance for glass? (Score 3, Informative) 37

That is one of those Wikipedia articles which is a bit vague about what it means. It's doesn't make sense to intend to say that glass transmits 90% of incident light regardless of the thickness. The Wikipedia entry references a single optical "element", so I'd take "the transmissivity of one element (two surfaces) is about 90%," to mean that 10% is the lower limit of light loss for a single lens of arbitrary thinness.

Now if a very thin silica glass lens transmits 90% of the light falling on it, then clearly it'd be very difficult to conceive of a material that transmits 10% more light than that. However you can achieve whatever level of attenuation you wish by making your piece of glass sufficiently (possibly absurdly) thick. The three inch thick glass panes used in giant ocean tanks are noticeably more opaque than air. Clearly it's physically possible for a material to transmit 10% more light than the same thickness of glass -- for a sufficient thickness. Particularly if the index of refraction of that material is closer to air.

Of course that's where we get to the point that the summary is badly written too. Silica glass *is* very transparent; insufficient transparency isn't a problem in window applications, if there's a problem it's that the material is too transparent. That's why we have dark tinting and anti-IR coating. So it's not clear why we would care that the material can transmit 10% more light. Clearly the story got garbled somewhere along the way.

Comment Re:Get a feature phone, dumbass. (Score 1) 285

You know what's going to happen if you rely on a pager, don't you? Nobody will know how to contact you on that.

Which, indeed, is a feature -- not a bug. Anyone you want to reach you you give them the secret formula: call my pager's phone #, and when you hear the beep enter your phone number followed by #. Or if you need to send text, send an email to myPagerPhoneNumber@provider.com. If you can't handle that I don't want to hear from you.

Oh, and a feature phone is fine solution if it's OK that you can't be reached when you're in a tunnel or some other places the VHF phone band can't reach but typical pager frequencies can.

Comment Re:Great (Score 2) 44

How's this, in the last 10 years, what if instead you didn't have 4G / LTE etc, instead you just still had "inefficient EDGE" BUT unlimited data, all month long, endlessly?

You mean... what if the cellphone carriers didn't take advantage of any of the advances in technology that had happened, and just gave us the same shit sandwich they were giving us 11 years ago?

I'd be pretty pissed about that completely different situation too. I'd say to them "Look, why not use the new spectrum the government is opening up for you, use something really efficient like LTE, and offer us more bandwidth for the same cost given we're paying you the same amount of money now as we were when you were still upgrading your network?"

Technology has improved. You'd expect that to result in actual improvements beyond being able to see a web page render more quickly on your mobile. We know capacity has improved, so why can't we access it?

Comment Re:Win3.x Win8.x (Score 2) 101

I'm finding it fairly amusing that Windows 3.x actually looks quite fresh and, ugly pre-anti-aliasing font aside, fairly modern. Which is odd because at the time, as a user of AmigaOS 2.04 at home, I thought it looked clumsy and ugly (and everyone else started to agree about the look of Windows 3.x when Windows 95 came out.)

There's a lot of flatness to the Windows 3.x UI, which is something that's in vogue again.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our country has plenty of good five-cent cigars, but the trouble is they charge fifteen cents for them.

Working...