Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Manners (Score 1) 762

> EVERYONE does this stuff. Why hide it?

Because it is good manners to do so. Good manners exist for a good reason: we have to constantly be around other people and behaving well in public eliminates unnecessary interpersonal conflict. Good manners help you put your best foot forward, while poor taste, crudeness, and indecency will always lower other people's opinion of you and damage your reputation, your job prospects, and your chances of getting what you want when dealing with others.

Good manners have nothing to do specifically with hiding sexuality, boobs, or the fact that people masturbate. We do not expose these in public because they are unflattering, not because they are shameful. Society has reasonably well defined expectations of what is and is not acceptable to do in public. These expectations are there to help you by telling you how to behave in order to be perceived as a person worth dealing with.

Good manners also help other people to go through their day without having to deal with things they find offensive, ugly, or just in plain bad taste. People who spend their days surrounded by what they like and enjoy are happier, more productive, and easier to deal with.

Society's standard of good manners does change with time, but the reason for having them does not. As long as you always try to show your best side in public, you'll be ok. The problem with the situation in the article, Miley Cyrus, or whoever is currently getting on your nerves, is that these people do not try. Not only do they fail to show their best, but they flaunt their worst - this is the real tragedy and a sign of the decline of our civilization.

Comment Should have done it on MTV (Score 4, Insightful) 762

So it's wrong for a guy to talk about "taking a picture of yourself staring at tits" and to simulate masturbation in public, but it's perfectly all right for Miley Cyrus to do the same (and more!) on national television in front of millions of people? I guess they should have done it on MTV; then it would have been ok.

Comment Re:If it is off - it might get stolen (Score 4, Insightful) 472

10000 laptops are stolen at airports every year. Presumably, they are off when that happens.

The NSA is not your problem; you are not important enough to be a target. When thinking about security, thieves are your problem. Theft happens, and happens often. Your computer is far more likely to get stolen than to be inflitrated by the NSA. And the solution is to encrypt your hard drive. Without encryption the thief will have access to everything you normally access from the computer - like your bank account. You wouldn't want that, would you? Today's CPUs all have AESNI support, so there is no excuse for not encrypting your laptop's hard drive. Do it today and get some financial peace of mind.

Comment Go all the way (Score 1) 736

If you start on this path, go all the way. In the Soviet Union there was no unemployment at all. Everybody had a job. In fact, being unemployed was a crime (no, not a serious crime). All you had to do was go to the local employment office and you'd be assigned somewhere. If you had no place to live, you'd get a place in a dorm and meals at the cafeteria.

Naturally, there are drawbacks. The cushy jobs were assigned strictly by pull. If you didn't have friends in high places, you'd get work in a quarry or something. If you did have friends in high places, you'd never get fired, so incompetence was the rule in managerial positions. Productivity sucked, but nobody really cared. Everybody had jobs, so who cares if there is no meat at the market this week?

Comment Re:Wealth Distribution (Score 1) 736

When workers become more productive, the manager is not going to stand by and let the work less for the same pay. He'll fire half of them and make the rest work twice as much. The company receives no benefit from giving workers leisure. There are always other people looking for work who'll be happy to replace any discontents, and most of the time technological advances can make up for any lack of workforce quality.

Comment Re:Not sure what's more depressing (Score 2) 68

Smartphone app, as in, it has to be installed on the phone and records behavior to send off to some user approved (even if by obscure yes/no choice) observer to look for suspicious behavior trends.

The app looks at phone usage and location patterns. These tasks can very easily be accomplished by the phone company reading your call and location log. In most places this data is available to law enforcement without a warrant. So while this particular study was made with consent of its participants, it is quite possible that this is being done to each and every one of us without our knowledge or consent. Implement a few "red-flag" conditions and you've got yourself a pre-crime detector.

Comment Get new girlfriend (Score 5, Funny) 337

Collaboration: Create an online dating profile. Have your old girlfriend write a recommendation on why you're worth dating.
Exploration: Ask her to rate potential new girlfriends.
Creativity: Date new girlfriend.
Storytelling: Tell the old one about the new one.
Combat: You did say she's not into combat, right? But, just in case, hide your batleth.

Comment Re:General relativity (Score 1) 190

> I was under the impression that energy warps space just as mass does

No it does not. Photons have no rest mass and their relativistic mass is negligible.

> I was also not aware that if you remove mass from a volume of
> space the space within that volume begans to expand faster.

Imagine space as a stretched napkin. Drop a salt shaker in the middle and see the napkin take a "gravity well" shape. The edges will move inward, reducing the projected surface area. Likewise, in space, matter warps space, pulling it in toward itself and thereby shrinking the universe. Convert that matter to light and space unwarps itself, expanding the universe.

> Well, you have, so why don't you do the calculations, write a paper, and win a Nobel prize?

Considering that all my comments get modded down, I'd wager that any paper I write on this subject will not pass peer review, whether it is correct or not. As for the calculations, they have already been done and published by Randall Mills, the quack from Blacklight Power. Naturally, everyone assumes that just because he has one quack theory, everything he says must automatically be wrong. Feel free to read his book and verify his calculations (the cosmology section is not really dependent on his quantum mechanics).

Comment Re:The problem with dark matter (Score 0) 190

Great. Science is really becoming a religion these days. Papers behind paywalls referencing non-public data. Consensus of a dozen people being considered "settled science". Comments asking honest questions being modded down, and papers questioning the "consensus" being rejected by peer review.

The reason for this was that the MACHO theory made very specific predictions that could be tested using sensitive instruments, such as gravitational lensing (remember, there is supposed to be enough to dramatically effect the amount of gravity acting on a galaxy)

So tell me why you are unable to succinctly state those reasons? Where is the data? If there is so much evidence to support nonbaryonic matter, why isn't it widely and freely available? How many people checked it and the calculations? Two?

Frankly, I am still convinced that the root of this whole problem lies in incorrectly estimating galactic mass density. I have not seen any raw data on this subject; do you know where I might get it? Just looking at a picture of a galaxy gives the impression of a more or less flat disk with density not too far from uniform. A flat uniformly dense disk will have a flat velocity curve, so my observation can't be too far off the mark. I would visually estimate that maybe half of the galactic disk would be dark matter, far less than the typical predictionsI am seeing. Something is really fishy in those calculations and I would really like to check it. Where is the data? Not released by researchers. Where are the papers? All hidden behind a paywall nobody can afford. Where is the science?

Comment Re:General relativity (Score 1) 190

> someone would have already thought of this if it was an issue.

Then please tell me who has already thought of explaining the expansion of the universe by considering the matter-to-energy conversion occuring within stars and realizing that the disappearing matter reduces space curvature, expanding it. Accelerating star formation and total power output would thus produce accelerating expansion of the universe. Do try to find any astrophysicists who has done these calculations. I'd be very interested to read their papers.

Comment Re:The problem with dark matter (Score 0) 190

> Simply put, because baryonic matter (ie. dust) radiates.

I don't buy that. Dust around the solar system radiates because the sun is pumping a lot of energy into it. Hot interstellar gas you see in telescope images was warmed up the same way. Dust floating sufficiently far away from any star will be cold enough to not radiate anything, not infrared, not X-ray. An unilluminated piece of rock will be invisible to you in all ways except for its gravitational influence, which is precisely what we are seeing. As such, I see no evidence rejecting interstellar dust and rocks.

As for the additional arguments based on CMB and galaxy formation, they are based on speculative models of the big bang that have no empirical evidence backing them. Sure, speculate all you wish, but whenever you try to tell me your models rule out galaxy formation, I am far more likely to consider your models wrong than as any kind of proof of existence of exotic matter.

There is also some question of the validity of gravity estimations involved in velocity curve plotting. I find it very hard to believe that I'm smarter than every astrophysicist that looked at that paper, but I'd question why the paper assumes that the gravity at point in a galaxy is equal to the point-mass equivalent of the matter contained within that radius. That result would occur if you were to use the shell theorem, but that theorem is only valid when spherical symmetry exists. In a flat galactic disk of uniform density the gravity at every point except near the center and the edges would be proportional to the local matter density irrespective of the radius, producing flat rotational curves. Again, I find it very difficult to believe that nobody has seen this before, so please try to explain to me why the paper you have linked appears to be using the erroneous calculation.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.