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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Hmmm... (Score 1) 641

Okay. For my part, I'll assume you don't really know a lot on the topic, and fill in the gaps with abuse of your fellow posters.

If this is not true, then well, I honestly wish you'd manage to communicate as much. Corporate personhood exists, and it's a given that it therefore leads to problems, just like any other thing.

However, if you reply at all, it will likely just be another post that's arrogant and devoid of information, such as the one I'm replying to right now. If you know so much, why do you not share your knowledge?

Comment Re:Hmmm... (Score 1) 641

Did you only read two sentences and then reply or something?

I think this would sound a lot more credible, were you to actually explain why you're supposedly right. Your rude, single-sentence replies to most posters don't make you look all that smart, either.

It's true that the chimpanzees will under no circumstances get the same kind of "personhood" as corporations. This does not mean that corporate personhood is problem-free, however. Working for a corporation makes you less likely to be punished personally, and being rude to other posters will not change that.

Comment Re:How about porting it... (Score 1) 307

Most smartphones are more powerful than the X11 desktop computers of just a few years ago; I don't think anyone has realistically been claiming that they wouldn't be able to to run a normal display server.

More powerful when they have power. A powerful desktop can run something that uses 10% of resources constantly without a problem. A powerful phone, not so much.

I'm not saying X11 takes 10% phone power constantly: I don't know. But it could be that X11 is significantly worse for battery life than Wayland, despite running without performance problems. If someone actually has any data, I'd be interested to hear about it.

Comment Tempting? I Don't Have a TV... (Score 5, Interesting) 271

"While it's tempting to upgrade your flatscreen to the latest technology,

I don't have a TV, and don't watch TV/movies other than through my faux-HD monitor.

I understand not everyone is like me, and that's OK. But in my circle of friends, it's really common to not have a TV and not care. Is this the experience of others, too?

Also, this whole 4K thing reeks of "we tried to sell 3D, failed, now trying desperately with the next thing..." But please reply if you're really into 4K, too...

Comment Re:Book (Score 1) 109

You mean like how they currently add acetaminophen to most opiates (check out your next codeine prescription) so that if you take too much you'll suffer liver damage? If you can't lead a horse to water, just poison every other source of water in the area and that fucking horse better damn well drink the right water... if not it's the horses fault its pissing blood.

Can you provide a source which shows acetaminophen has no medical purpose in those drugs? Those drugs are used in combination in most places I've heard of, so there would have to be a worldwide conspiracy for it to be just a poison.

A quick search found this: http://www.bmj.com/content/313/7053/321. That says that if you want to remove one drug from the combination, it's codeine. Also, up to 10% of white people apparently "immune" to codeine (side note: I do not know the academic field of medicine, and do not know if that paper is connected to anyone/thing reputable).

So basically, acetaminophen is an analgesic. You can get it by itself, or in combination with another analgesic. I think it's somewhat less far-fetched to believe that a painkiller is there for pain relief, than that it's there because of a worldwide conspiracy...

Comment Re:What a nonsense post... (Score 1) 1030

That means that to provide 100% of the power the US generates in a year (which was 4,054 billion kilowatthours of electricity in 2012), you'd need about 18,000 square miles of solar panels.

Per http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2013/2269.html there are ~691 000 square miles of cropland in the US. 18 000 square miles fit inside that 38 times over.

The short answer is that to provide all our power needs from solar, assuming we could actually get full use from the panels, which you can't, you'd use about 50% of the total land area on Earth that we currently use for crops, to hold all the panels. (I don't know about you, but I'd rather grow more food)

So basically, this is just not true. It's FUD. Get your facts straight before accusing others of being blind.

Comment Re:How does this story play in Arizona (Score 1) 1030

Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing everyone who supports renewables. There's a sound economic reason for subsidizing R&D of renewables - fossil fuels externalize costs via pollution, so the subsidy just helps level the playing field. But just like there's an idiot segment of the right who can't grok the externalized cost problem, there's an idiot segment of the left who can't grok that the cost to produce energy still matters, regardless of how beneficial renewables are. Higher energy costs translate directly into lower standard of living. We've just been fortunate so far that our rate of technological progress has managed to outpace the drag higher oil prices have put on our productivity.

I think you're basically right, but you're forgetting one group. The corrupt POS slimebags on both sides, who will betray and destroy anything and everything, as long as they get money.

"All" Republicans wouldn't be for something other than oil, because their paymasters aren't about to approve that. Some percentage of Republicans would just look at the electricity price, though, because you always get both good and bad people.

Comment Re:What a nonsense post... (Score 1) 1030

The short answer is that to provide all our power needs from solar, assuming we could actually get full use from the panels, which you can't, you'd use about 50% of the total land area on Earth that we currently use for crops, to hold all the panels. (I don't know about you, but I'd rather grow more food)

Using your links, that would mean 30 kW constantly per capita, assuming seven billion humans. A quick check shows that's too high. Not to mention that the diagram in one of your links shows solar would take a lot less space.

Can you show those calculations you did? At this point, you're starting to sound like solar being bad is the most important thing, facts be damned. But I'll admit I'm wrong if you can show some credible data.

Comment Re:This is why... (Score 2, Insightful) 206

because they are crazy busy doing their best to provide quality software to you for nothing.

Uhh, the guy flaming in this case is working for Ubuntu. I don't know this, but I'd bet he's *employed* by Ubuntu.

Meaning, he probably has even fewer excuses.

And if making distros is a thankless job, maybe he should have some respect for others doing it? The guy behaved badly, end of story.

Comment Some Info: Dark Sky vs. Twilight Viewing (Score 2) 45

Wikipedia says that thing was fourth magnitude when visible in the night sky: that's not very bright. But it can *seem* bright in good dark skies. Dark skies were, of course, much more common in the seventies than they are now. Light pollution eats comet tails for breakfast.

Now, few comments (nice typo...COMETS) are really impressive in the night sky. Hale-Bopp was one exception. Most are impressive only close to the sun - this was true of Kohoutek, and will be true of ISON if it survives.

The predictions for ISON place it very close to Kohoutek in terms of brightness, actually. This brightness is for the closest approach to the sun - meaning best viewing is right after sunset, or just before sunrise. If things pan out, we might get to see a huge, bright tail against a backdrop of somewhat dark sky.

Comment Re:So, time to scrap TSA/airport security checks (Score 1) 208

The people who are really interested in this level of destruction are more likely to go with the more cost-effective method of garnering attention for their cause. I don't see suicide-hijackings becoming so common that passengers will automatically distrust an armed man enough that they will rush towards certain death in an attempt to forestall it.

Certain death?? Even assuming that a large proportion of passengers are incapable of fighting, even a group of hijackers is likely to be outnumbered three to one. They will not get into the cockpit before the crew can use the address system.

The passengers will communicate using their cell phones, just like last time. The hijackers won't fool anyone again. And, as another poster said, they will never get to the point of telling anyone anything.

The rules have changed, and you're also failing to account for what desperate people can do.

Slashdot Top Deals

To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison

Working...