Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Sure (Score 1) 307

by rhazz (#48878611) Attached to: Blackberry CEO: Net Neutrality Means Mandating Cross-Platform Apps
This is very true. When my wife first got her BB she was ecstatic about being "in the BBM club" with her friends who had BBs, and this in an era when you only got 75 free texts with a minimal phone plan. BBM wasn't available for either iPhone or Android then, but I definitely would have picked it up if it had been. BB milked their proprietary messaging service as long as it was popular, and only put it on other platforms when their market share started shrinking. Now they fault other companies for doing the same thing.

Now my wife still has a BB but no longer gives a shit about BBM. Just like no one will care about iMessage when the iPhone finally starts losing share, nor will it draw any users back to the iPhone.

Comment: Re:Just give the option to turn it off... (Score 5, Funny) 792

by rhazz (#48877691) Attached to: Fake Engine Noise Is the Auto Industry's Dirty Little Secret
Car enthusiasts who were also audiophiles were surveyed to find out what they thought about the synthesized engine noise. They all complained that the sound wasn't pure enough without Monster cables delivering the full spectrum of "whooshiness" to the speakers.

Comment: Re:Movies from the book seller? (Score 3) 92

by rhazz (#48850735) Attached to: Amazon Plans To Release 12 Movies a Year In Theaters and On Prime
It worked for Netflix, it will probably work for Amazon. They are buying the content from actual film studios rather than producing it themselves, so it just comes down whether or not they can buy shows that will be popular. Some of the "Netflix-original" content is pretty good.

Comment: Re:how is this any different?? (Score 2) 877

by rhazz (#48819757) Attached to: Pope Francis: There Are Limits To Freedom of Expression
But it is ridiculous for the pope to equate someone standing in front of you throwing insults at you and someone publishing insults in a paper. In the former case the insults are thrust upon you and you have to go out of your way to avoid those insults - it selfishly degrades the quality of your life. In the latter case the insults are on paper and you have to go out of your way to see it and be insulted. Unless someone can make the argument that Charlie Hebdo forced people to see/read their publication (beyond it being displayed at a newstand), the pope's stance just serves to limit completely valid forms of expression.

Comment: Re:Cartooney. (Score 1) 163

by rhazz (#48659765) Attached to: 'Citizenfour' Producers Sued Over Edward Snowden Leaks

The only "person" who can bring an action that has any weight behind it is the US Government, or some other person who has been directly harmed.

And the US government has also failed to publicly show actual harm, haven't they? Though I suppose they could always just say "We were harmed because -REDACTED-".

Comment: Re:Useless attempt (Score 1) 1051

by rhazz (#48585941) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?
Just curious, to which lab did you send your viral samples for verification that the flu strain was different from the one you were vaccinated against? Also, did you know that the typical flu symptoms last 3-7 days? Sounds to me like your immune system was able to overcome the virus thanks to the vaccine increasing your immune response to it.

Comment: Re:This is a Bad Idea (tm) (Score 1) 1051

by rhazz (#48585871) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?
My sister in law recently commented on a friend's post about Wakefield's effect on vaccination rates. She talked about how she didn't believe in the flu vaccine since it's "just a crapshoot" and that the government "can't do math right" so how could they pick the right flu strain to vaccinate against. Many friends provided a very calm and rational explanation about how she was misunderstanding what vaccines are, statistical risk, and herd immunity. She went on to say that that healthy lifestyle choices and vitamins were far more effective, etc (interesting because both she and her children are obese). This is also a woman who takes her 4 year old daughter to the chiropractor.

How do you even begin to educate someone like that?

Comment: Re:Not the real problem (Score 1) 1051

by rhazz (#48585771) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?
Just look at the URL for that second link "illegal-alien-minors-spreading-tb-ebola-dengue-swine-flu". When you actually look at the article there is no mention of ebola. I bet the original had ebola in there too, but they figured the numbers for that were too readily available for anyone to swallow the bullshit.

Comment: Re:Some anti-CO2 efforts CAUSE starvation (Score 1) 695

I bet there are many ways to cut down on CO2 production that have an overall negative impact on society - some obvious, others not so obvious. Converting food crops to gas crops seems like one of the obvious ones, right up there with "Save energy by cooking your pork at half the recommended temperature".

Comment: Re:Redistribution (Score 1) 739

by rhazz (#48282665) Attached to: Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

People who live in these more civilized countries read this shit about the US and simply scratch their heads. The numbers alone are mind-boggling to people whose entire annual medical expenditure is usually under $100, and frequently 0.

I really do scratch my head. I honestly cannot fathom what it must be like to live in a society where if I break my leg or get seriously ill I might have to choose between treatment and paying the rent.

Comment: Re:Tops out at 10 billion (Score 1) 495

by rhazz (#48270913) Attached to: Imagining the Future History of Climate Change
It only tops out at 10 billion if undeveloped countries continue to develop and other population trends continue. I saw this TED talk a while back, and what I didn't like about it is the sense of "Everything will magically work out, just relax and don't worry about it" it exhumed. The decline of population growth is relatively new, and has mostly come about by chance rather than any concentrated effort by humans. 40 years from now we could be back to uncontrolled growth again (maybe genetic designer babies will cause a worldwide boom). I think as nonrenewable resources become more scarce, the current population will start to seem more and more unmanageable.

Comment: Re:History is written by the victors (Score 1) 495

by rhazz (#48270751) Attached to: Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

Populations in most developed countries are still growing, they just experience slower growth than underdeveloped countries.

But the rate of growth has been declining for many years, and much of today's growth is due to immigration. Canada's population growth rate is currently 1.2%. Two thirds of that is from immigration. So our local growth is 0.4% and falling. If current trends continue we will have negative local growth in a few decades. Immigration will keep us steady only as long as undeveloped countries stay undeveloped. :)

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson