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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Err on the side of warmth (Score 1) 367

You have only to look at the jungle compared to that arctic to realize that...

Unless you also compare the jungle to, say, the Sahara.

Incidentally, the arctic is classified as a desert. There's very little precipitation, just like with any other desert.

Comment: Re:Standing (Score 1) 203

by penguinoid (#48433475) Attached to: Harvard Students Move Fossil Fuel Stock Fight To Court

Cut 'em some slack; it's not as though they're attending an Ivy League law school where they'd learn fancy schmancy legal concepts like standing.

Exactly. When you're sued by your own students, you're quite screwed. Turns out not only are Harvard's students incompetent, but they also hate Harvard enough to sue. Why would anyone want to go there?

Comment: Re:How about this one? (Score 1) 62

by penguinoid (#48428057) Attached to: US Intelligence Unit Launches $50k Speech Recognition Competition

"Go fuck yourself."

Better idea. Enter the competition, use already well-developed commercial software (or write a program to average the results of several commercial programs), and easily win the competition. It's not like anyone is going to create software worth millions and give it away for a tiny prize.

Comment: Unfair gender stereotypes (Score 1) 561

by penguinoid (#48427879) Attached to: "Barbie: I Can Be a Computer Engineer" Pulled From Amazon

I'm offended that boys are being stereotyped as too stupid to realize that Barbie is just using them! Wait, I bet I was supposed to be offended that Barbie using her natural talents and as a result achieving her objectives, was using the wrong talent. Cause she'd be smarter to do it all 100% by herself, so the book portrays her as stupid, right?

Comment: Re:This study is... (Score 1) 123

by penguinoid (#48413395) Attached to: Electric Shock Study Suggests We'd Rather Hurt Ourselves Than Others

The irony here is that penguinoid is empathically projecting a common human sense of empathy onto a group whose most defining characteristic is the lack of it.

Quite the opposite, I was pointing out that even people with no empathy at all could easily make the choice, in their own self-interest, which the study declares proof of altruism. Even if they remain anonymous to their victim, they may feel the loss of reputation in the eyes of the researchers is worth more than a few cents.

This is not entirely idle speculation, either. I took a game theory class, and everyone thumbed their noses at the "proper self-interested actions" recommended by game theory when their actions were public in favor of a reputation for cooperation. When the teacher made arrangements to make everything entirely anonymous, suddenly everyone turned vicious.

Comment: Re:Bennett!!!!!! (Score 1) 246

by penguinoid (#48407135) Attached to: Big Talk About Small Samples

But why is Bennett's garbage being approved? I understand slashvertisements, because there is at least a monetary benefit to posting them. I also understand some pseudoscience occasionally slipping by, because the editor didn't read it carefully. But this crap? It is obvious shit from beginning to end. He has nothing to say. It is just completely pointless.

And yet there's always several comments on his material. Granted, most of them complaining about Bennett, but clicks nonetheless. My theory is that the editors are trolling you.

You might have mail.