Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment When somebody tells me they're bored (Score 1) 126

They're wither a teen-ager, or a particularly boring person.

Some people don't allow themselves to BE bored, there's always something interesting, always some question to find an answer to, or some creative question to be asked to attempt to find an answer for.

Bored people are people who are basically stupid. With access to so many things you used to have to work so hard to have access to in the past, if you could discover and access those resources at all, boredom is now more of a red flag that you're more stupid and damaged than you are merely temporarily "bored"...

Comment Re:Unexplained Collapses??? (Score 1) 133

The sensitivity bees have to electrostatic energy, and the claims some people make of EMI sensitivity have no relation.

It HAS been documented that SOME people perceive things outside the radio-frequency spectrum that MOST people can not.

The assumption that some researcher somewhere will automatically instantly have the interest, and be able to secure the funding to study every natural anomaly, is based on naivete and ignorance.

And the phrase "please demonstrate it for science" is just ridiculous and childish.

Comment Re:Clean digital, please (Score 1) 166

It isn't about "a less-clean recording process" or improving it by means thereof.

Your understanding of analogue is seriously flawed; indeed, you can get "clipping" with any analogue signal.

There's more than "one good thing" about analogue recording - you just don't understand what analogue IS.

Tube amps do not necessarily distort, and an imitation of analogue distortion is just an imitation.

Everyone that rated your remarks highly are stunningly stupid. As opposed to ignorant. Ignorant people at least COULD potentially educate themselves. Stupid people CHOOSE to remain ignorant.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 375

The point is not to enable pulling people over.

The point is to make it possible to ticket people for wearing them when they're in an accident, and assigning the fault OF the accidents people will undoubtedly be IN while wearing the device.

And also to make it easier to investigate weather someone was wearing one DURING the accident or not, the way we're able to tell now with cell phones and texting.

Generally my attitude is that most new laws are a bad idea and a gratuitous waste of time and taxpayer money, primarily for lawmakers self-aggrandizement and re-elect-ability. In this instance, however, this is not necessarily the case. If you cause an accident wearing this stupid device, you should be found at fault, and you should have to pay, just like all the asshole cell phone users clogging-up the roads causing accidents and being a hazard should be fined and have to pay dearly for being such selfish, ignorant, hazardous douchebags.

Comment Re:I won't go to Pycon. (Score 1) 759

Politics is ugly and stupid, is all that I've taken out of the whole debacle.

Some dingbat using twitter managed to mess up her career and somebody else's over remarks that any intelligent person would regard as being silly and insignificant, at worst.

Also, employers tend towards being cowardly and stupid little tools. If you work for someone that's gonna fire you over something so trivial, what does that say about your employer and the state of employment in the US ?

Yeah, all this tech we have now, all this "social media" is such a huge boon and such remarkable "progress". It can be used to be productive, but overall, it's just another manifestation of how people waste time and jerk off and highlights the worst of what people are all about. Big surprise there !

Comment Piracy exists when you deserve to be pirated... (Score 1) 687

It's that simple. Make your business model and services and support so bullet proof and customer-oriented that piracy is pointless, and you won't have a problem with piracy.

Arguments that piracy is a popularity tax, piracy is just the cost of doing business, piracy is an inevitability, all these arguments are only a partial consideration.

Yes, SOME things will always have a degree of piracy, that's a given. Work with it, since it's a fact of life. Instead of making your product something that people feel morally compelled to pirate, create a product and service and support model that's comprehensive and unique enough that piracy of it is pointless. In other words, sell a product that isn't just a one dimensional product. Sell a product that has a future, that purchasing includes so many perks and so many benefits that only an idiot would pirate it.

You know, a modern business model that incorporates the best of the things of the past, like excellent customer service, reliability, genuine product support, and innovation.

This, as opposed to something shiny and destined to be completely obsolete within months/a year.

Comment Re:But (Score 1) 473

From the article you've quoted :

"Perhaps more important, Facebook users have slightly more close confidents (2.16) than non-users (1.93). Confidents are defined as "people with whom they discuss important matters.""

Also from the same article :

"N for full sample 2,255 and margin of error is +/- 2.3 percantage ponts. N for facebook users-877 and margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage points."

So, yeah, people who don't use FB at all are more intelligent.

At least, arguably, intelligent enough to regard such small sample sizes and such large margins of error as rendering the very slight significance of social network users as being somehow anything but more *needy* when it comes to the kind of *insulated* "social interaction" provided through the internet !

Of course social networks are just a tool, any tool can be used intelligently, or foolishly. Mostly social networks are used foolishly by people who are foolish for thinking that their constant status updates and "likes" are some kind of significant or meaningful "social" interaction.

Comment Re:Conspiracy! (Score 1) 659

To stupid people ignorance is bliss; to an informed patient, denying access to their own information, that could very well save their own lives because of the fear that some idiot is going to misuse their own information - is hardly a justification for keeping people who want to access their own medical data from having access to it.

The example you give is irrelevant to this discussion because it has nothing to do with denying access to your own medical information. The issue is not that the doctor has to immediately tell you every little detail. The issue is that you have a right to go looking at every little detail in your medical record.

And "dying on the table" is not an uncommon or unexpected thing, it's really not a big deal when you have a staff of highly trained people and equipment to immediately bring you back.

Comment Re:Possible compromise? (Score 1) 659

OMG, are you fucking kidding me ? "Appropriate balance" ?

The data on you is YOUR data, and you have an inalienable right to access that data, period.

The justification that a few "patients from hell" is a good enough excuse to keep secret dossiers on patients is utter bullshit.

What is insignificant in your medical record to one doctor may very well be profoundly important to another, and it's your right to get an opinion from another doctor, and your right to make your own health care decisions.

You can't DO this if you don't have access to your own medical record, and this is essentially what some corrupt doctors want - to prevent you from making YOUR OWN decisions, so that they can use you as their own personal piggy-bank.

Slashdot Top Deals

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman