Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:He actually could be right. No joke. (Score 4, Insightful) 318

by sribe (#49127951) Attached to: Use Astrology To Save Britain's Health System, Says MP

I've never spoken to an doctor for that long and I'd be suprised if any doctor had time or could afford such a thing.

No, but a decent doctor could do the differential diagnosis of reflux vs heart problems in about 1 minute flat, without spending most of an hour on irrelevant bullshit intended only to impress the gullible (which looks like it worked, at least in this case).

Comment: Re:Thanks Obama...for nothing! (Score 1) 429

by sribe (#49122421) Attached to: Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline Bill

Never understood why it's called an Obamaphone since he actually had fuck all to do with it.

Because his administration allowed the ~$9/month subsidy to be applied to cell phones, instead of being restricted to land lines.

And it's clear that lazy unmotivated poor people deserve to be tied down to land lines, rather than be allowed the chance to bask in the stunning luxury of having a cell phone when looking for a job.

Comment: Re:Of course (Score 2) 27

by sribe (#49098793) Attached to: Rapid Test For Ebola Now Available

Now that Ebola is actually a threat to rich white people living in developed nations, we can expect that new treatments will be created soon.

Treatments were under development long before this outbreak. But of course, when they become available, you'll just assume that development started after the first cases in the US and Europe.

Comment: Re:Some misconceptions (Score 1) 318

by sribe (#49085059) Attached to: Java Vs. Node.js: Epic Battle For Dev Mindshare

It's a lot like that, it just appears easier on the surface, misleading many middle-of-the-road developers in to thinking they've got it all figured out after a quick tutorial.

Good point. And I think those are the ones defending node, not the ones criticizing it ;-)

(FYI, I've been working with event-driven asynchronous programming daily since 2001. I do think I've got it mostly figure out...)

Comment: Re:Moot Point and useless debate. (Score 1) 318

by sribe (#49082935) Attached to: Java Vs. Node.js: Epic Battle For Dev Mindshare

Javascript on the server-side is total bollocks. Now that the client has gone smart again, because the browser *is* the client-side env, therefore Javascript has clearly won as *the* client-side language, and this means the server may become lean and mean again, because it can dispense with all the GUI, HTML, etc.. nonsense.

Good point.

Comment: Re:Some misconceptions (Score 2) 318

by sribe (#49082885) Attached to: Java Vs. Node.js: Epic Battle For Dev Mindshare

The JavaScript world meanwhile has developed a kind of Stockholm syndrome...

Yep. Go to any support forum for node and point out what a pain in the ass it is in node to actually handle all paths, including errors, correctly, and just watch the comments rain down reaming you for not understanding event-driven programming. When I started looking at newer backends that might handle reactive stuff better than RoR, all the info seemed to point to Node.js. When I actually started learning it, I was horrified.

Comment: Re:Some misconceptions (Score 1) 318

by sribe (#49082835) Attached to: Java Vs. Node.js: Epic Battle For Dev Mindshare

Node.js isn't fast. It's concurrent.

For an extremely limited notion of "concurrent". Also, extremely outdated, even though an awful lot of people who are ignorant of computing history have convinced themselves that it's totally new & revolutionary. (I've been asynchronous reactive programming for nearly 15 years, and the way node does it is just awful.)

Comment: Re:Cancer just doesn't have that "it" factor!! (Score 1) 96

by sribe (#49082787) Attached to: Researchers Block HIV Infection In Monkeys With Artificial Protein

Ad hominem-ing your way through the slashdot echo chamber I see.

Nope. It is crystal clear that the poster is severely homophobic. Maybe you should read it again, carefully, and note the unfounded assertion based purely in bias, the deprecation of the suffering of a certain segment, the derogatory references to those who support them, and so on. The post was sickeningly vile.

Comment: Re:Cancer just doesn't have that "it" factor!! (Score 2) 96

by sribe (#49082769) Attached to: Researchers Block HIV Infection In Monkeys With Artificial Protein

People don't choose to get cancer. AIDS, however, is almost completely voluntary. Nice job, throwing slurs at dissenters, though. That's the way to show tolerance! :)

1) Many people in the west voluntarily choose to engage in behaviors which greatly increase their chances of getting cancer. So, in developed societies, much cancer is voluntary according to your definition. Meanwhile, in Africa, many women have no choice whatsoever about being forced into activities from which they contract AIDS, and their children are certainly not born with it voluntarily.

2) First off, the basic point the "dissenter" made was completely incorrect, there is not so vastly more research effort going to AIDS than there is to cancer and there is no factual basis that would lead one to such a conclusion, it was purely an unfounded assertion. Second off, my supposed "slur" was nothing more than reading what was obvious from the derogatory way he (yes, he, that too is obvious) referred to gays and those who advocate for their causes.

Comment: Re:Cancer just doesn't have that "it" factor!! (Score 4, Informative) 96

by sribe (#49080547) Attached to: Researchers Block HIV Infection In Monkeys With Artificial Protein

I just wish half as much effort had been put into fighting cancer as has been put into fighting AIDS over the last three decades.

And what exactly makes you think that is NOT the case? Oh, wait, I see, you're a homophobic idiot who just assumes that because you see actors on TV talking about AIDS, that somehow there's no money being spent on cancer research anymore. You really could not be more wrong if you tried.

Comment: Re:Orders of Magnitude (Score 4, Insightful) 99

by sribe (#49070149) Attached to: New Map Shows USA's Quietest Places

60db is only 1/3 of an order of magnitude above 20db. 200db is one order of magnitude above 20db and is like a canon going off and no city is that loud consistently. Two orders of magnitude above 20db would damage hearing at 2,000db.

You fail. db is a logarithmic scale. 10db is a factor of 10. 60db is 4 orders of magnitude from 20db.

"An entire fraternity of strapping Wall-Street-bound youth. Hell - this is going to be a blood bath!" -- Post Bros. Comics