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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What else would you have them do? (Score 1) 524

I hope that it's clear that I have no interest in carrying on a 'conversation' with a birther and truther. That way leads to madness.

Since I have made it abundantly clear, more than once, that I am not even remotely a "birther", and those you call "truthers" are on the side of overwhelming evidence and the professional consensus, I am curious to know what your real reason is. After all, I thought you supported expert consensus views.

Comment Re: What scientists do (Score 1) 524

Yes, the trend was down. That's what I said. The explanation for "the Pause" was that Solar output fell, and that matched the amount the CO2-based warming rose. That's my point above: that Solar changes can be bigger than CO2-driven changes, to judge by the historical data of the past 800,000 years.

Comment Re:Probably (Score 1) 585

Now we have roundabouts. They work even better than traffic lights for most intersections. Far less accidents and a smoother overall traffic flow.

At the cost of massively more real estate. No wonder houses cost so goddamn much in Europe. You're wasting too much space on roundabouts.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 243

I have that level of contempt for Anarchists. But for Libertarians... I just feel sorry for them. They're the stooges of the Neo-Liberal psychopath elite. They are literally no different beyond the belief that "It'll all work out in the end for everyone." The actual sociopaths running the show and funding their party do not have that belief and do not care beyond the fact that they still need to sell it to the people who'll be harmed by their policies.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 243

That scenario is a figurative asylum to you, why not just put them in actual asylums after a certain period? If it's a sickness, education and work/responsibility conditioning could be a cure. Maybe model them after Job Corps and ROTC, but for adults of all ages with a special sub-program for ex-cons.

I originally was going to make this a snarky comment, but as I continued writing, I realized it wasn't a bad idea. Sure we wouldn't call them "asylums", but people who can't find jobs ever and/or don't want any? That's a sickness. We can and should try to fix that.

Comment Re:Are there that many drone in the air in the US? (Score 1) 17

Are there really that many drones kicking around that they are this much of an issue?

The rule (and its change) wasn't about "drones" - it was about any and all RC-controlled flying things. Balsa-wood models that grandpa has been flying around in circles in his back field for 40 years, for example. Hundreds of thousands of people have been flying RC aircraft for many decades. And no, it's never been an issue and still isn't. The FAA's random rule-generating system has nothing to do with reality.

Comment Re:FAA doing it right (Score 1) 17

Other than that, they have no reason to exist and should be shot down, no mater where they are.

So you're thinking that these machines, which people have been flying for decades - an activity enjoyed by millions of people over multiple generations, should all be shot down? Really?

If I find your car annoying or your mobile phone to be an intrusive image-capturing device, can I shoot at them? No? Why not?

Comment Re:Self-Selection? (Score 1) 174

I take your point for the few people working professionally with GitHub instead of the normal case for software devs.

In my case, my professional name isn't my legal name - the latter isn't anywhere on the internet. But to your point, my professional name does indicate my sex, and if I were trying to make a living with open source it would show up in GitHub.

Comment Re:Self-Selection? (Score 3, Interesting) 174

First impression: somebody needs to learn about statistics that have more than one predictor variable.

Second impression: despite the lack of appropriate analysis, the differences in figure 5 are big enough to be reasonably clear. It looks like there is discrimination against anybody who has a gendered profile (maybe maintainers don't like pictures?). This discrimination might be slightly greater against outside women, and is fairly likely greater against inside men.

Third impression: the paper and the Slashdot summary have a strong gender bias; they mention only the small and borderline significant anti-female bias while ignoring the more significant anti-male bias and also the much larger anti-(either) gender identifiable bias.

Slashdot Top Deals

Earth is a beta site.