Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:They would only be hurting themselves (Score 1) 1318

To cope with the ceaseless realization that some day, no matter how hard you try to avoid it, you will die. Most people simply cannot cope with living every minute of their lives knowing that their very existence will end. Religion provides a hope that oblivion isn't inevitable. Of course, such a powerful psychological coping mechanism is ripe for use as a means of control, which is why the idea is reinforced in nearly every religion that the less that you accept the precepts on faith (passed down from the select few at the top, of course), the less chance that you have of avoiding the horrible fate that forms the basis of the desire to believe in the first place.

I wholeheartedly understand and sympathize with the religious. I just wish they'd keep it to themselves as I'd much prefer to spend the few precious years that I do have in a rational world.

Comment Re:cool idea but why? (Score 1) 197

Fair enough. My friend must have 1080p, 7.1 surround, etc, etc, while I've been perfectly content with my 27" CRT that probably doesn't even cover 480p. But I will be getting a 3D ready television in the next couple of months. My friend is sticking with what he has as he doesn't give a shit about 3D.

Different strokes. It's nice having options.

Comment Re:cool idea but why? (Score 1) 197

Even if those of us who:

* can see the 3D display fine
* don't get headaches, dizziness, or other symptoms that I have seen complaints about
* don't mind having to wear the glasses at all when viewing 3D content (besides, I've hated headphones for years and still use them all of the time)
* genuinely enjoy the 3D effect when it is applied appropriately

make up a tiny fraction of total television owners, that is still a shitload of potential sales of TVs, set-top boxes, glasses, and content. Why wouldn't they roll with it?

Comment Re:Rectifying interference with more interference? (Score 1) 228

You're not taking into account the observer effect. Unlike all other species (as far as I am aware) humans are the only creatures to have conscious awareness of concepts such as evolution and biological diversity. Therefore, by definition we are no longer blindly subject to it, and in fact have not been for a long time. Even though we did not have these concepts defined as part of the common vernacular throughout most of human existence, we have made conscious decisions to guide evolutionary change by implementing selective breeding programs of animals and plants and by developing adaptive environments for climates that nature failed to otherwise equip us.

By taking the observer effect into account, the recognition of the importance of biological diversity to our quality of life is, in itself, an evolutionary trait of the species. It has grown from a kernel in early agrarian societies where the seed from more robust crops were favored for planting to the modern day, where we actively study and recognize evolutionary factors at the genetic level. We have superceded the lower levels of Maslow's heirarchy of needs, where most life still dwells, and have introduced creature comforts and emotional satisfaction as factors that are considered for "fitness." Therefore, the desire to have delicious bluefin tuna available for consumption, the guilt over having a role in events that directly threaten the existence of other species, and the satisfaction derived from moral relativism are all evolutionary "fitness" factors that are unique to humanity. Should a catastrophic event occur that wipes out all technology and strikes us all retarded then our evolution will once again be driven almost solely by the only factors that you associate with "fitness," but until then we're pretty much well beyond those concerns.

Comment Re:Rectifying interference with more interference? (Score 1) 228

That shredded shit in a can is to tuna what cockroaches are to lobsters. Do yourself a favor a go to a decent sushi restaurant (not in a mall, strip or otherwise) and order some yellowfin sashimi and a tuna roll. THAT is how good tuna is served.

Sorry if that came off harsh in any way other than to canned tuna, as it's not my intent to dog you personally. I just grew up on that stuff and never realized what I was missing out on and figure you're in the same boat.

Comment Re:Gartner is shilling (Score 1) 1213

In only two ways: release of security patches and the ability to meet the requirements new applications or new versions of existing applications. But we find both of those kind of important, at least important enough to have a migration plan in place even if we don't immediately upgrade all systems across the company. I personally upgraded prior to RC1 just to guinea pig it before formal piloting and I'll be damned if I ever go back. The new Start menu sucks, which I fixed by installing Classic Shell, but I've been plenty happy with it otherwise.

Comment Re:I like the idea (Score 3, Interesting) 126

My wife and I tried a new sushi place a couple weeks back (free plug: Amura in Lake Mary, for Central Floridians. Best sushi we've had yet.). As usual, we kept it simple and ordered a sushi and sashimi platter. Their platter had less sashimi then we're used to getting, but more rolls, and heavy rolls at that. Absolutely delicious, like to the point that we ate past the point of discomfort, and yet there were still a couple pieces of a tuna roll left. Fortunately nobody decided to shit on such a great meal by giving us crap about not eating those last two pieces that we didn't psychically determine beforehand would be too much.

This reminds me of a thread on another site that was about a sushi chef kicking people out for not eating sushi the way that he wanted them to. Is this sort of crap common with sushi places?

Slashdot Top Deals