Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Submission + - How the liberal critics of the Apollo program were proven wrong ( 2

MarkWhittington writes: "A recent story in The Atlantic reminds us that the Apollo program, so fondly remembered in the 21st Century, was opposed by a great many people while it was ongoing, on the theory that the money spent going to the moon would have been better spent on poverty programs. The problem with this view was that spending for Lyndon Johnson's Great Society dwarfed the Apollo program, that the programs in the Great Society largely failed to address poverty and other social ills, and that the Apollo program actually had a stimulative effect on the economy that fostered economic growth and created jobs by driving the development of technology,"

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 513

I agree with you. I just don't think it's worth picking up a gun over. Vote the shitheads out of office. Remember, it's soap box, ballot box, jury box, then ammo box.....

I happen to agree with you on the order of the 4 boxes, but the first three have arguably NOT worked.

1. Soap: With the rise of youtube/facebook/myspace/twatter the Noise to signal ratio has gone way off the scale. Even shown logarithmically, the graph would cut off the paper and need to be inked on the wall.
2. Ballot: With a 2 party system and no run-off voting for most of the country, we really don't have a lot of options. The tea party is a great 3'rd party, seems to have some steam, but lets face it, they're going to vote R come general election time, just to make sure a D doesn't get into office. Their principles will let them be spoilers for primary's but not for general elections. (though it is interesting to note that where the tea party candidate get's the nod for the republican slot, the "favored" republican often runs as an independent.
3. Jury: In this day and age it amazes me that next to no one understands the proper role of a jury. Just because the judge tells you it's your job to determine the facts, does not make it so. The proper role of juries is to vote not guilty for anyone they think shouldn't be punished. If the law said being black was a crime, i imagine jury nullification MIGHT be better known then.
4. Ammo: I'm not calling for an armed revolution in this country, but with 50% of us not paying taxes and 10% of us not even American citizens, I sure won't be surprised when one breaks out. And it will probably start in a state like Arizona, maybe even Alaska. My big issue is, at 32, do i sit on the sidelines safe on my couch, or do I do the right thing and join the soldiers of freedom?

  The problem is that we lack a national or even state leader capable of cutting through the bullshit to do the right thing.

Comment Re:Oversaturation of the Brand (Score 1) 134

It's funny you should mention the short sightedness of larger corporations since a friend and I were talking about that very thing just yesterday. I came up with the Idea of a sliding scale of capital gain's tax. Start it at 90% for stocks held 1 year, and drop it by 15% a year thereafter all the way to 0. While there are certainly drawbacks, we could be damned sure that those in charge would be singing a tune of what can I do to make us better in 5 years as opposed to what can I do to bump our stock for today.

Comment Save Time & Money! (Score 1) 256

Just blame Terry Childs. It was a backdoor into a citywide system. Clearly he's responsible. Doubtlessly the D.A. is already concocting a theory involving him having visited the city during a conference, and installing a modem into the network. By phoning a specific number and entering a sequence of numbers from his prison phone, he's brought the network to its knees.

Comment Re:Build trust? (Score 2, Funny) 436

In defense of the men driving the "black van of disappearance", Keith Olbermann's show is so low rated that unless his own mother ratted him out, they'd have no way of knowing he was speaking out against the government. I didn't even know he was still on the air. I guess I just assumed he'd already been disappeared with his wife!

Comment Re:Thanks again NYCL (Score 1) 163

You mean you hope there's action taken if they are proven to be true, right?

Due process applies to everyone, not just the people we like.

Corporations, and therefor cartel's of corporations are legal fictions. They deserve no more due process than Goldilocks for stealing all that porridge.

Comment Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It (Score 1) 549

What's really odd is that there are so few blacks who are Republicans. It seems to me on most core issues gun rights, abortion, death penalty, school of choice, taxation, gay marriages, and many others most blacks lean more to the conservative side. Is it historical? Is it patronage(in the form of social programs)? Is it the race peddlers Jackson/Sharpton/others?

Comment Re:You can't say NO (Score 1) 410

Every time I read about somebody being forced into on-call job duties (didn't we just have an ask slashdot on this?) I can't help but think of Season 5 of Babylon 5 when Molari is forced to have a "Keeper" implanted. I rather imagine the emotional feeling of someone being forced into on-call when they are handed the beeper/phone is damn similar. Course, Molari could get drunk for an hour or two of freedom. Most on call workers have to submit a request in triplicate 3 months in advance for a few hours "off the leash"

Comment Where do they keep finding 12 morons? (Score 5, Interesting) 1127

I have to assume this guy is not guilty, not because of the presumption of innocence, but rather by the lack of accessible cp on his computer. Pedophiles don't just quit cold turkey, and even if he is a pedophile, quit cold turkey (doesn't happen), hey great, he's fixed his problem on his own. Going with that:

Where does the government keep finding 12 morons to vote guilty in the jury box? I know this particular guy's case isn't going to a jury, but his lawyer seems to think he's screwed if he does. With easy to explain facts like this, both the DA (who wouldn't bring charges that would hurt his win %) and defense thinks there is a high likely hood of conviction? Are you kidding me?

And how many CRAZY guilty verdicts have we read about? Why are juries stacked with idiots too stupid to see that they could just as likely be in the defendant's seat for a multitude of offenses?

Quick side story: *all numbers, except age are fudged to prevent recrimination* I'm 32 (so far so good on my plan to outlive Jesus) and have been on a Jury 1 time. It was a drug charge, which I kinda figured out during jury selection based on the questions I was asked, so I shaped my answers accordingly. It ended up being a trial of a 19 year old kid found with 5 marijuana plants in a "grow box" (nice setup, bought online for like 2k, could of built his own for 800). The prosecution presented their case, the defense only called the defendant, who swore up and down that they were only for personal use (we're not in a medical marijuana state), and the defendant pretty much begged for mercy. I swear at this point one of my co-juror's started to tear up. Final arguments came and went, and then the Judge, the last arbiter of law said (paraphrasing here) that we were only to determine if he possessed the plants, and if so, to find him guilty.

We got back to the jury room and as I'm told we're not supposed to do, but always gets done regardless, we took a vote. 11-1. IANAL but I believed without knowing that if I gave my real reason for not wanting to convict that I'd be replaced (we had 2 alternates). I've never had to choose my wording so carefully, meanwhile the rest of the Jury kept saying things like : "the judge said we had to vote guilty" and "It doesn't matter if I think he did anything wrong, the judge said he did wrong" (that last one, I SWEAR TO GOD, was uttered word for word, i will never forget a syllable). It took 2 hours of carefully worded analogies to sway 1 other to my side, from there we got to 3 in 10 minutes, at 4, the whole room switched. Let me say that again, at 4 ppl, the remaining 8 switched over, not out of a sense of civic duty, but because they were tired and wanted to go home. WITH A MAN'S LIFE IN THE BALANCE.

When we returned our verdict, the judge didn't look at what the foreman wrote (he opened it, looked at its general direction and refolded it), when the foreman not guilty, the Judge damn near fell out of his chair, the DA did a real life triple take, and the defense attorney looked like a deer in headlights. The point is that all 3 professionals INCLUDING the defense attorney, were shocked that the jury failed to rubber stamp guilty on this guy.

After we were relieved 4 of the other jurors came to me and admitted thru conversation that they smoked pot and didn't want to vote guilty at all, but thought they had to because the judge had told them to. As they were talking, all I could think was, "So this is how democracy ends, with sheep"

Comment Re:Actually this is about *policy*, not science (Score 1) 822

This really is a GREAT question, probably the best I've ever seen on /. in regards to GW/AGW, it should probably get its own poll. I invite you to suggest it as an article/poll. But since that probably wouldn't happen, I'm going to answer here. For me it'd be 3 things.

First the other side would have to quit using the word denier(s) to describe their opponents in the debate. It's not the fucking holocaust, it hasn't happened yet, labeling people sets off my bullshitometer.

Second, and most importantly I'd have to see some demonstrable results. Point to the prediction in 1990 and show me the results in 2002. Point to the prediction in 1991 and show me the results in 2003. I've seen too many articles detailing 1998/2000 as the hottest years on record but nothing since. I'm not trying to turn a blind eye, I understand that in any given year or two even if agw is real, the temperatures might go down for a variety of reasons. What I have a problem with is 8-10 years of cooling that's 10% of the time some predictions are calling for a 10c increase in temperatures.

Third, and this is my personal biggest issue, if the hystericals (hey they call me a denier) would quit saying the debate is over. I NEVER HEARD A DEBATE. How can something be over if it never happened? Admit that you may be wrong , show me the respect of having a reasoned debate on the issue, and I could be convinced agw is real.

As an aside to your question, really dovetailing with the cost/benefit of AGW/GW that you brought up in the main body of your post, wasn't their an article recently on /. about the engineering of reversing global warming? (this would have been a HORRIBLE year to do that btw, we'da had snow in michigan in JULY if the temps dropped another 3 degrees). Why don't the Deniers and the Hystericals get together, come up with a plan to reduce global temperature through science & engineering if it's needed, grab some popcorn and wait to see who was right? If temps do go up, reduce them with the Trillions of Dollars saved by not having this cap and tax bullshit.

At this point I know I'm rambling, but why the huge push for NOW? Everything has to be NOW. I get that there is a perceived problem, but steamrolling NEVER works in the U.S. If it's that goddamn important, take your time, convince people with predictions that come true, and quit insulting your critics.

Comment Economic and Political Solutions? (Score 2, Interesting) 88

I get what these extortion-ware programs are. I've removed a few from my various relatives windows machines with malwarebytes and 1 other program (it's funny how no 1 program seems to be able to remove these vicious buggers). What I don't understand is how these a$$holes are getting their money. So the last time it happened to my uncle I told him to pay. He paid with a visa, waited a week and disputed the charge. It took him a few weeks, but finally got the chargeback, which I'm sure cost the a$$holes some of their own cash. Of course, during this period of time, the "anti-virus 2009" wasn't actually removed, but was weakened enough for my uncle to hop on the net and download his own malwarebytes and clean his system up. From now on, every time a relative gets this or one of its bastard brothers, I'm advising a "pay now and charge-back a week later" approach. I hope it catches on and the credit card companies, whose love of money has thus far blinded them to the illegal extortion scheme they've been aiding, decides it just isn't profitable to keep moving money for the a$$holes.

Which brings me to my second point. I have a 5 year old son. I explained in simple terms, without analogy what the a$$holes are doing, and HE grasped that it was wrong, so why haven't our law enforcement official done so? I assume without knowing that most of the a$$holes are foreign nationals. FOLLOW THE DAMN MONEY. I can hire a P.I. for $250 who could tell me where the money is going. When the money get's where it's going, have our LEO on the phone with the local LEO and, just a name off the top of my head Hillary Clinton on 3-way, and a DEMAND that whoever got the money start talking. If Hillary can't be bothered, fire the bitch and get someone who can spare 20 minutes to help thousands maybe hundreds of thousands of their countrymen not be extorted. Rinse, repeat as necessary until we get to the BIG CHEESE. Don't extradite, let them be tried wherever they're found, preferably with charges that translate to "screwing with our government's aid deals with the U.S. (there aren't THAT many countries the U.S. isn't funneling money, or at LEAST food too).

Functionally, there isn't much difference between these programs and foreign nationals walking into grandma's house and ripping her computer out and refusing to hand it back without $30. If we can't fix such an obvious problem economically, or politically, then we are left with a 3'rd option. Find them and take them out with drones. I'm not even remotely kidding. I hope it doesn't come to it, but how many of us would bat an eye if it did?

Comment Re:Wrong Premise (Score 1) 1108

Maybe so, but here's a hypothetical situation to consider. A comet is crashing towards the area you live in. Scientists have a raging debate as to whether or not it will completely disintegrate before hitting your house. Do you stay in your house till they reach a "consensus" or get the hell out of there?

Whether global warming is true or not really doesn't matter much. We still need to take precautions to prevent pollution and switch to cleaner energy sources. It will benefit our own health and safety as well as be a matter of prudence.

This is why the AGW debate so infuriates soooo many people, on both sides. The analogy you are using lacks anything even remotely analogous to the debate other than FUD.

So in your mind, we should move to another planet? We can't (yet? ever? hell I don't know), since, depending on the outcome sans consensus, our planet may or may not be toast.
From your perspective, HELL YES, let's do whatever we've been told will help, opportunity cost be damned, because Global Warming will kill XX million people.

From the perspective of non AGW believers, HELL NO, let's use our LIMITED resources on things which will improve our standards of life, not make them worse.

What gets me about AGW chicken littles is that they are spot on about finite resources. We have, a finite amount of every resource. They understand that perfectly, but they seem to think that money and food are infinite. The food riots of this past summer are a perfect example. The Jackass that thought of turning FOOD into FUEL ought to be shot. (S)he killed more people in 1 food riot than (Provable) Anthropogenic Global Warming has since the dawn of the issue.

How about this for an analogy, probably as wrong as yours, but on the other side of the debate.

You're been running a small business for 10 years (we'll call this the last million years), you're making enough to get by, you have 100 employees. Some scientists walk in off the street and take a look at your "BIG BOARD" that lists up to the second what your ledger balance is. After 2 minutes (we'll call this the 70's) more than half see that your balances are going up and declare that you'll be forced to hire more people. 20 more minutes go by (we'll call this the 80's-2007), and THOSE VERY SAME SCIENTISTS are screaming that you have to lay people off, or your company is doomed. Meanwhile, this whole time, a few of the scientists have been looking over your books from the last few years and have realized that with the enormity of day to day transactions, you cannot tell, from such a small window, what shape the company is in. So you don't wait for a consensus, you fire 100 people, because it's the prudent thing to do?

At this point I'm rambling, newborn in the house, haven't slept in 30 hours. I'll post something more coherent in the morning.

Slashdot Top Deals

The bogosity meter just pegged.