Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment This is where I get confused about AGW. (Score 1) 77

which likely flourished there the last time the land in that area was exposed to sunlight before the Little Ice Age.

So, this makes it sound like it was a climate change - an ice age - that caused this area to get totally covered in ice, right? But isn't one of the major concerns about the proposed AGW/CC that said ice is melting (presumption: it shouldn't)?

I realize maybe we could argue about the rate of change, but didn't the previous ice ages ... kinda ... supposedly happen rather quickly, too?

Truth be told, my views are significantly different than the above, ha. But I'm curious how this works out, since I believe the overlap of those who accept this history of the earth with those who accept AGW is likely pretty large.

Comment Re:Or (Score 1) 273

Lots of things are food additives that are ... dubious in their health nature, shall we say. Have you read anything about high fructose corn syrup and problems associated with that? How about trans-fats, which recently underwent lots of legislation and whatnot?

Something being legal or added to food is hardly an argument for it being health neutral. I'm not necessarily arguing that MSG is bad, either; I'm saying that your argument for it being fine is ... faulty. :)

Comment Re:Behind on more than one metric (Score 1) 164

You mean this one, the description of which specifically mentions "Sleeping car passengers can experience a full range of exclusive services and amenities on the Coast Starlight, including complimentary onboard internet access via AmtrakConnect and an exciting alternative meal service, both available in the Parlour Car."

It's restricted to select passengers and only in one car, apparently, but it IS there.

Comment Re:And... (Score 5, Informative) 618

that no one seriously expect a tablet to be a PC

No, but the option for more overlap is nice. Especially when it has nothing to do with actual processing power issues, and not even screen size with a tablet, but simply peripheral and OS problems.

If nothing else... PRINTING would be awfully nice from a tablet. Too bad both Android and Apple have clunky hacks (well, I'm not too familiar with the Apple one, but I understand it's not a native print-to-printer thing). It's not like it's a hard problem to solve, it's been solved for years.

Same with typing. ASUS has a good thing, IMO, going with their Transformer tablets (I own one). I think it was smart for Microsoft to do it.

I'm sure it's not for everyone. Not everyone likes smartphones, either (I don't have one) ... some for very similar reasons ("nobody seriously expects a phone to be a computer"). But, hey, some do. And I've heard, actually, some very good things about the Windows tablets. The bad thing, of course, is that they are expensive :)

Comment Re:Developer? (Score 1) 220

Not really. IAAST and I don't get pleasure at finding someone else's screw-up. What I get pleasure from is finding a bug that, if it was released with the product, would have caused problems. Rather than a sadistic "HAHA, I FOUND YOUR MISTAKE! TAKE THAT, DEVELOPER!" ... I enjoy a pretty good and friendly relationship with the developers I work with such that they WANT me to find bugs, and I WANT them to write as few bugs as possible, and we all want as bug-free a release as possible.

Comment Re:Sperm Donors, That's All We Are (Score 1) 832

All this, and yet we all bemoan the hardships of being a "single mom and having to work three jobs while going to school and taking care of my infant baby." For anyone in that situation, I am sure it is hard, and I'm sorry about it, and I wish it did not happen, and I wish guys took more responsibility; that's not the point ... the point is that we as a culture make fun of guys being dads (and who needs a dad anyways?! ... well, until you find out how important it is, later in life), yet complain when they aren't being dads.

Comment Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score 1) 307

So, when we are dealing with things for self-defense against those who wish to HARM ME (or kill me, or steal my stuff, or rape my wife, or whatever you want to say)... I should not be allowed to use an object whose primary design is to shoot and harm, and yes, even kill, living things?

I'm not saying "only criminals will have guns," thought that is true. My argument, though, is not "hey, that's not fair!" My argument is that, in light of the need for self defense, I SHOULD be allowed to have objects whose design is to effectively and safely (to those around me) kill someone attempting to harm me or my family. Or my livestock (like a mountain lion... errr, well, assuming you don't live in California where they are protected, of course...).

but then again I don't have paranoid fantasies of being a modern-day Braveheart.

Perhaps there are those that have this. But you seriously read my post and think that I want to be a modern-day Braveheart? I watched the movie and didn't like it because of the violence. I've watched history things from the BBC and I am consistently shocked at the penchant for violence that we have. We don't even need a good reason to kill people. He looked at me funny. He doesn't look like me. He talks funny. He's walking where I don't want him to walk. He supports the wrong king. He's the wrong religion. He doesn't have a religion. He does have a religion. He came from the wrong family. His great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather insulted mine. Humans are violent.

So, before you say that I want my gun because I want to be a modern day Braveheart, perhaps you could at least try to understand the potential benefits of using said guns? Regardless of whether or not *I* have one, it's more or less inevitable (see history) that others will. We simply cannot assume that this violent human race we are a part of will, unequivocally, decide to relinquish all weapons meant to kill, or seriously maim (like swords, bows, guns, bombs, sharpened sticks). So the question is ... is it a good idea to keep those who wish to protect themselves against such violence from accessing weapons to protect themselves?

Since you mention Braveheart; let's say your wife was going to be raped, forcibly - who cares by whom. Would you fight back? Let's say they had guns. Would you wish you had one? Let's say they had a sword. Would you be content with your stick, or wish you had a sword, too?

The point is not that I want to do evil with my gun. The point is that I want to prevent evil done to those around me and those I love. And I don't count, for what it's worth, "taxes" as evil.

To me... this does not seem hard to understand... to borrow your phrase; but then again, I don't have idealistic fantasies about a modern utopia free of violence, nor do I immediately assume that anyone who wants a gun wants to be a modern-day Braveheart. Almost everyone I personally know that owns or even "likes" guns is extremely safe with them and has them for sporting and self-defense. Don't let the actions of a few crazy people (whether that's mentally or simply radical) make you think we are all that way... no more than you want "gun-control" people to all sound like the crazies example of an ignorant, hypocritical gun-control advocate who wishes to not let the general populace have guns but wishes to have them himself for his own protection.

Comment Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score 1) 307

I don't think you read my post very carefully (or at all, other than "oh, he mentions a knife" ?). I clearly implied that there is a difference. For example:
"the gun increases his ability for violence."
And, for that matter... my entire opening line was aimed at pointing out differences between various objects.

My point is not that "there's no difference between a knife and a gun." There clearly is, and I think my post clearly agrees with that. My point is that why do we draw an imaginary and arbitrary line at guns? Guns ARE more dangerous than knives. But knives are more dangerous than bats. So ... why don't we outlaw knives, too? They're more dangerous. Why would you need a knife over a given length? etc.

I could counter your comment with this: if you cannot see that something being more dangerous than something else does not automatically mean it needs to be banned, then it will be impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you. :)

Comment Re:What do you use your tablet for? (Score 1) 564

We use it for media consumption primarily. Don't want to drag your laptop to bed for reading a couple web pages, articles, Facebook, or checking your e-mail? Tablet is nice. Want to just sit on the couch and read some articles, e-mail, or Facebook? Tablet is nice. How about reading PDFs? Tablet is nice. What about when you're out and about and just want something for the occasional downtime or coffee shop? Tablet is nice.

Phones could fill this niche, too, and I know many people that use their phone for this ... but, having used some phone-sized screen devices ... I really do like the tablet better for a lot. I can actually see pictures inline in the webpage without having to horizontally scroll or zoom way out. I can actually watch a video WITH MY WIFE (or friend or whoever I happen to be with in a coffee shop at the time)! Shocking.

Sure, for browsing or reading little things, phones may be fine. But for ... more prolonged and "serious" media consumption (books, articles, webpages) and "social" consumption (watching a movie together, even if that's youtube or something), I really prefer a larger screen.

"there is no reason to upgrade it everytime there is a new model" - couldn't you say the same thing about basically everything? When's the last time you NEEDED to upgrade your phone? your desktop? your laptop? Anyways, we don't upgrade our tablet very often. I used to have a Viewsonic gTablet, replaced that with an ASUS Transformer (TF300). I've had the TF300 for just about a year now and don't plan on upgrading, at least as long as ASUS continues to provide updates. But I haven't upgraded my desktop computer (except with an SSD) in ... I dunno, 6 years? I'm still on DDR2 and an Intel Q6600.

The "oooooh, new iPhone! must have!" people are crazier than the tablet people, seriously. I know far more people who have the same tablet they had a year ago than phone. Most people seem to want to upgrade their phone every time a new one comes out... but people seem more content with their tablet. I dunno why. Marketing, perhaps? Or software updates? Then again, I guess the "new phone!!!" people tend to be iPhone users (and I do know a lot of people that still have iPhone 4s).

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it. -- William Buckley

Working...