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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Intact human brain? (Score 1) 167

The thing is, you didn't *mention* it, you made an unverified probabilistic claim. Directly.

Your use of the word "probably" implies that *the most likely cause of death among people in England 2700 years ago was anti-semite persecution*. Logically following from here, if that's the most likely cause of death (which would qualify your "probably"), then a fairly large percent of 2700-year-back Yorkshire population would have had to be Jewish.

That's news to me.

Perhaps, just perhaps, people were modding you a Troll not because they believe Jews weren't persecuted... but more for the fact that you're making blanket, untrue statements, then following these up with ad-hominem attacks for anyone who doesn't chime in in agreement or downmods your terrible math.

Comment Re:Here come the lawsuits... (Score 1) 820

When I was 8 years old, it would never even occur to me to swallow these magnets. It would be as self-defeating as swallowing my own LEGO pieces.

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=swallow+lego&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

~1.37 million results, sadly - Google suggested this at the top of the list once I'd typed "Swallow le"

Lesson: people will always manage to do "stupid" things. And there are lots of people.

Comment Re:hey ronald... (Score 1) 627

Yep - same reason I couldn't drink black tea for 5 years - a cup of black tea was the beverage I had at my desk *as I was starting to feel a bit nauseous* from a norovirus my wife'd picked up a few days earlier. I never finished it, and ended up having to take the train home soon after. Around 4 years in, I could start making my tea/coffees at less than 30% milk-by-volume again. I still can't drink them black, even diluted with water to half-strength.

Comment Re:easy: (Score 1) 181

Caveat: I work in data/risk management software in the financial sector. Also, I'm feeling a bit under-the-weather today, so sorry if this is less than coherent or comes off rambly.

When the GP says "give", I think they're aware that there are conditions built into that giving - I'd have a hard time believing they think bank loans are essentially gifts. But from the sound of your response, it seems you're against even this conditional-lending definition of 'give'...

So, following your logic... loans should be given to startup companies by institutions who *aren't* concerned about making a profit from the deal? Just wondering... why would anyone *with* money lend it to me (for the business I hope to start some day) if they had nothing to gain? Where should I go for capital?

If someone's willing to let me use their money now, on the hopes (which they share with me) that in the future, my business will thrive and I'll be able to pay them back with a bit on the side - I'll be happy for the deal! But there's the thing - do we really only want investors in ideas that "sound good" to someone at the bank, and which some lender personally can get behind (how would I find such a person for *my* business)? Realistically, a bank shouldn't care about me, nor my business - an investment system where the lenders line-item your expenditures and approve purchase-by-purchase aligned with my stated business plan would be a nightmare - our current system allows for banks to ignore the nitty-gritty details of my operations, assessing their risk by evaluating the market as a whole, my industry within it, my corporation within my industry, any past books we may have, potential collateral, etc... then charging me a spread above their costs to *get* the money they want to lend me. Perhaps if the government would just start lending directly to the people (at no interest as you seem to want?) we could have a functional world without interest-gatherers (and no inflation, too)... but for all sorts of reasons I don't see that going anywhere.

If I take their money, only to realize later that I'm unable to pay them back... well, we have courts for that to try to get them back at least what they gave me, but generally they'll go for the amount *I agreed to give them back*, regardless of whether I have that in liquid assets. I'd really rather not lose my house over it, but again - were they not able to take my assets as remuneration, you can bet your ass they'd either be out of the game (and not lending to just about anyone), or raising rates to account for all the non-payback.

So, parent poster; If you've got enough in the bank to cover the economy out of goodwill - please get to work. I'll call you first when I need $200k for brewing equipment, farm implements, and a robotics lab, and a commercial kitchen (yeah, my dream company will be that awesome). Thankfully, from the sound of things, you seem to think it's best not to charge interest, so you'll have the best rates around and will get all the business.

No, I don't think most financial institutions are well run, accurately measure risk, properly analyze any of the points I mentioned previously (or realize that their simplified models leave out lots of important real-world information - but that's another hours-long rant). *But* I think it's very clear that without some incentives (eg: a spread on every loan, and some gov't protection from too many people defaulting at once (asset seizure laws + trustworthy insurance + etc...)), nobody with money would have any reason to lend - only to spend. Trickle-down doesn't work well enough to make that a place I'd like to live.

Comment Re:Last bastion (Score 1) 963

It's worth noting that, during these times, there were indeed human-induced changes on a global scale rippling across the earth. Hint: there weren't fields of barley, wheat, olives, hops (etc) nor flocks of aurochs, swine, poultry (etc) sitting around 100,000 years ago, but by 3,000 BC these were becoming widespread. Even cities of 10,000 require fairly large-scale support networks, especially when dealing with the manufacture/farming (in-)efficiencies of those times. The clearing of land and changing use patterns have much larger effects than some of us would like to bother considering.

No, I'm not saying this is what caused the warming(s) you speak of, just noting that there are other human actions which can contribute to large-scale weather and (over a long-term enough outlook, if sustained) climate changes.

Comment Re:Another reason (Score 1) 346

In DS9, during the Dominion war against the Federation, there's a sub-plot involving changelings having invaded Starfleet Command (actually, I think the Klingon and definitely the Cardassian leadership as well). For a time, it became standard practice to blood-test anyone involved in any important decision making, though hazily I remember this applying more to ships officers than the entire population. There were also later sub-plots about a rogue department (Section 30something) "within" Starfleet basically running unchecked hit-squads and the like.

As for the coups, in looking this up, I happily stumbled across a wikipedia article that recaps it better than I can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_revolutions_and_coups#Star_Trek

Comment Re:Makes sense actually (Score 1) 447

Note that Discovery Channel is not owned by ESPN, ABC, Disney, or any other third party. It's owned by Discovery, Inc. - full stop. National Geographic Channel, likewise, is not owned by any third party. It's a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Geographic Society.

Right about Discovery, wrong about Nat Geo.

Last I checked, it was owned by News Corp... (well, most of it anyway)

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-television/ (Somewhat dated)
http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=newscorp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_Channel

Power

Submission + - Massive Solar Updraft Towers Planned for Arizona (inhabitat.com)

MikeChino writes: Australia-based EnviroMission Ltd recently announced plans to build two solar updraft towers that span hundreds of acres in La Paz County, Arizona. Solar updraft technology sounds promising enough: generate hot air with a giant greenhouse, channel the air into a chimney-like device, and let the warm wind turn a wind turbine to produce energy. The scale of the devices would be staggering — each plant would consist of a 2,400 foot chimney over a greenhouse measuring four square miles. The Southern California Public Power Authority has approved EnviroMission as a provider, although there’s still plenty of work to be done before the $750 million, 200 megawatt project can begin.
Power

Submission + - Next-Gen Glitter-Sized Photovoltaic Cells Unveiled (inhabitat.com)

MikeChino writes: Sandia National Laboratories recently announced a new breed of glitter-sized solar cells made from crystalline silicon that use 100 times less material to generate the same amount of electricity as standard solar cells made from 6-inch square solar wafers. Perfect for soaking up the sun’s rays on unusual shapes and surfaces, the tiny solar cells are expected to be less expensive, more efficient, and have promising new applications in textiles, clothing, and building facade installations.
Image

Jetman Attempts Intercontinental Flight 140

Last year we ran the story of Yves Rossy and his DIY jetwings. Yves spent $190,000 and countless hours building a set of jet-powered wings which he used to cross the English Channel. Rossy's next goal is to cross the Strait of Gibraltar, from Tangier in Morocco and Tarifa on the southwestern tip of Spain. From the article: "Using a four-cylinder jet pack and carbon fibre wings spanning over 8ft, he will jump out of a plane at 6,500 ft and cruise at 130 mph until he reaches the Spanish coast, when he will parachute to earth." Update 18:57 GMT: mytrip writes: "Yves Rossy took off from Tangiers but five minutes into an expected 15-minute flight he was obliged to ditch into the wind-swept waters."

Comment Re:Thats an easy question... (Score 1) 1364

Personally, I don't get it; so long as you don't make me marry a person of the same gender against my will, why do I care what you do?

Personally, I don't get it; so long as you don't make me watch the Star Wars remakes with revised "shoots first" order, and bonus lumbering beasts, why do I care if other people do?

For many people out there, probably the ones who have the strongest views on "what marraige should be", there's a fear of change and a reluctance to embrace new ideas. Sure, some of these people may not even disagree with the ideas that strongly (though some definitely will), but if nothing else may embrace the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mindset. I know plenty of Star Wars geeks who to this day will get upset when you mention the changes made in the 90's re-releases, even though they have no effect on their lives other than changing something which was important to them.

The biggest difference, of course, is that both versions of Star Wars can co-exist, whereas with "redefinitions" of marraige, it's an either-or situation. If anything this will cement the opposition even further.

It's OK for different people to have different viewpoints - there's no empirical "right" or "wrong" on this issue.

As for the rest of your points though, I'd have to say I agree... someone who secretly enjoys the original Star Wars series but will only speak out against the re-releases when they think nobody will know they're doing it clearly is either afraid to embrace their opinion publicly (for whatever reason - it's not my place to decide why someone did something), or didn't hold the position that strongly to begin with.

Slashdot Top Deals

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir

Working...