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


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! ×

Comment Re:So to sum up (Score 1) 618

Most BDSM practitioners align "SJW". These are conservative values that kicked him out.

No, it wasn't. He was kicked out because his sexual proclivities include the domination of women, specifically. To quote Buytaert word-for-word:

In the end, I fundamentally believe that all people are created equally. This belief has shaped the values that the Drupal project has held since it's early days. I cannot in good faith support someone who actively promotes a philosophy that is contrary to this. The Gorean philosophy promoted by Larry is based on the principle that women are evolutionarily predisposed to serve men and that the natural order is for men to dominate and lead.

You are correct that traditionally it'd be conservatives making a stink about someones sexual proclivities. That has changed, and is no longer true (well, never really was for some people, like the radicals who think that all sex between men and women is rape). Nowadays, nominally "liberals" are also opposed to certain kinds of sexual behavior, if such behavior doesn't fall into their acceptable category. They usually define "acceptable" different than conservatives, though in this case they both more or less agree.

Comment Re:While its not my cup of tea (Score 3, Interesting) 618

No, it's not new. Americans have been acting like this for a long time with all that puritan outrage bullshit despite being the land of commercial sleaze.

It's not new, but what is (fairly) new is that it's now coming from the nominally "liberal" and "progressive" political spectrum in America. It's the Horseshoe effect. Same reason many people on both sides of the political spectrum oppose prostitution: conservatives oppose it because they believe exploiting women for sex is immoral, and liberals because... well, actually, the exact same thing, really.

Comment Re:Please stop (Score 1) 272

Correct. It needs to be addressed. And putting it on the front page of tech sites keeps it from getting pushed to the side like it has been for far too long.

Or putting it front and center on tech sites might cause women who would otherwise be interested in going into tech fields to avoid them, because they don't want to go into a field where they think they will be discriminated against, thus leading to fewer women in such fields, thus leading to more accusations of sexism in those fields, and so on the circle goes. If I was a cynic (well, more of a cynic), I might even think that all these "tech is sexist!" stories are deliberately intended to keep women away from STEM, so that the appearance of sexism can continuously be used as a drum to rally political support. But I'm not quite that cynical: rather, I think it's just that people are more interested in appearing to solve problems than in actually solving them (which, to be fair, is definitely not a new phenomenon).

Comment Re:Loss of control (Score 2) 253

The issue here is that the producers of unsavoury content are being supported by income provided by the advertisers.

They probably don't really care about that either. What they care about is not being associated in the public mind with such socially unacceptable content, and as a plus by pulling their advertising dollars they can gain free advertisement from the news stories about pulling their ads.

Comment Re:Proof (Score 2) 415

That she demands proof is equivalent to others demanding proof that we do not live in a simulation.

No, it's not. It's the responsibility of the person who proposes a hypothesis to provide evidence for it, or a path to find such evidence (i.e. specific predictions of what we'd see if the hypothesis were true). It is, in fact, impossible to prove a negative, so asking people who say we're probably not in a simulation for evidence is literally asking for the impossible: it is always possible to say "well, the simulation must just be slightly better than any of our observations!" In science, we therefore accept the null hypothesis (in this case, not a simulation) until someone can provide some compelling reason (for e.g. anything even remotely resembling evidence) to show that the alternative hypothesis.

Currently there is zero scientific reason to believe we live in a simulation. None, nadda, nothing. Personally, I don't think there ever will be, and I don't think I've ever even heard a decent, serious proposal of what such evidence would look like, to the point where I'm reasonably sure the "universe is a simulation" cannot be considered a scientific theory at all, because it is neither provable nor falsifiable.

Comment Re:Compare to defense budget (Score 1) 311

I'm a big fan of a well-funded military. Aside from the importance in providing safety and stability against outside intrusion, for better or worse, the power of the US military plays a huge role in the US's world strength: the US would never be able to sustain it's economic and political position if it did not have the most powerful military in the world, and achieving that requires massive funding. In addition, if that funding is properly spent, it goes back into the US economy, boosting the R&D and manufacturing capabilities, and can attract foreign trade as well (in the form of sale of military hardware).

That said, there are three major caveats. The first is proper spending. The F-35? Yeah, not only are we wasting massive amounts of money on a unified platform that doesn't work as well for any job as a dedicated one, the cost and time overruns means more and more potential buyers are switching to the Eurofighter or similar. The problem isn't that the military doesn't have enough money: it's that it isn't being spent properly. Instead of being spent in the best interest of the US, it's spent in the best interest of the politicians who use it as political capital, and in the best interests of the corporations who support them.

The second caveat is that the US military isn't just well-funded, it's vastly overfunded. A well-funded military is a solid bulwark necessary for the US and it's interests. An overfunded military is a waste of money and, if anything, ends up leading to a weaker military (since money ends up being poured into pork instead of into providing what the military actually needs).

Finally, again for better or worse, a well-funded NASA is more or less just as necessary to the long-term military interests of the US as the actual military is. Space is the next major frontier for warfare, and whether there is an open war on earth, or just proxy wars and scrabbles over the resources of space, without a well-funded and developed space program the US is going to be at a massive military disadvantage in 20-50 years (or sooner).

Comment Re:What the fuck is FMA? (Score 3, Informative) 112

Apparently, I had to look into the forum posts that the FA referenced, and FMA instructions are Fused Multiply Add, whatever the fuck that is.

After looking at Wikipedia for 5 seconds, FMA instructions perform round(a+b*c) in a single operation, so you can a) speed up and b) get more accurate results whenever you need such a mathematical operation (which is actually reasonably frequently, in numerical computing).

Comment Re:Mercator straight lines are not great circles! (Score 3, Insightful) 319

useful for navigation.


Yes. By construction, straight lines on a Mercator map have constant bearing towards magnetic north. That means if you take out your compass, face a given angle with respect to north, and follow it, you make a straight line on the Mercator map. That's extremely useful, probably one of the most useful properties a map can have for navigational purposes (unless you're really really good at doing some rather complicated coordinate transformations).

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 4, Interesting) 167

So I would expect there to be a time-corollary of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle [wikipedia.org].

There is, but it's probably not what you're thinking of. Technically speaking, the Heisenberg uncertainty pair applies to any two pairs of non-commutating quantum variables (or, depending on how you look at it, any two Fourier partners). Position and momentum happen to be one such pair. Another is time and energy. What that means, however, is that the energy of a particle in an unstable state (i.e. a state that can spontaneously decay into a lower energy state) is not perfectly well-defined, and the variance in energy is inversely proportional to the average decay time. In other words, the faster a particle (or state) decays, the wider the range of energies that particle/state is allowed to have, so that only long-lived states of physical systems have well-defined energies (by "long lived" I mean something like microseconds or even nanoseconds, which is long by quantum standards).

In the case of time measurements, this would generally mean the energy of our clock becomes less well defined as we make more and more precise measurements of the time. That's not really a problem, though: we just have to be greater that 1/2 h_bar, which is ~3e-16 eV*s. That means if the uncertainty in our time is 1 part in 10,000,000,000,000,000 (modern atomic clocks are very roughly in that range), we have an uncertainty of about 1 eV in the energy of our state. That's decently large (in terms of atomic scale physics), but pretty negligible in terms of everything else (nuclear physics involves energies a million times greater than that).

Comment Re:Lots of work to do (Score 0, Troll) 160

It's amusing that you consider this "relegated to a second-hand internet user". If Google can't track you, they can't use said tracking to verify that you're a human. Of course that means you have to do more work to prove you are a human. If you deliberately choose to opt out of a feature of the internet that makes your life more convenient for the sake of privacy, your internet usage is going to be less convenient. This isn't the only area where that happens (for instance, if you don't want credit card companies tracking your purchases, you have to use cash, which is less convenient). This isn't difficult, and let's be honest, it's also not a big deal (these reCaptchas take like 30 seconds maybe every couple of days). Privacy and convenience are, and always have been, a tradeoff.

Comment Re:I welcome this (Score 2) 149

Manned exploration of the Moon is honestly kinda pointless. It's close enough that signal delay isn't an issue for robots, and that's one of, maybe even the *only*, advantage humans have over robots for exploration. Robots are cheaper, simpler, lighter, less fragile, easier to handle, and less likely to malfunction. Even in the 60s manned Moon missions were as much a pissing match between the US and USSR as they were a valid scientific goal. Now, if they send people to the Moon and keep them there for extended periods of time (weeks to months), I'll be impressed, and cheering them on the whole way. Long-term manned space travel, with the eventual goal of colonization, is a practically necessary step forwards in human development. Mars has some attractive aspects over the Moon, but colonization of it is well outside our capability in the near future. But we could have a long-term lunar scientific colony operating right now, if we really wanted to, and it's almost an embarrassment to mankind that we don't, nearly 50 years after Apollo 11.

Comment Re:We know... (Score 1) 198

Oh good lord, I missed that story. Slashdot linking to fucking Buzzfeed? Are you fucking serious? Anyways, that story doesn't show anything of the sort. You know why? Because even if all those tweets are real (and I wouldn't put it past Buzzfeed to make them up, or pay people to write them), and even if they're all serious (which they're probably not), a handful of tweets still doesn't mean anything about anything.

Comment Re:Kill The Messenger (Score 5, Insightful) 236

It's weird how Wikileaks was "just trying to get the information out there" and "serving the people" when they leaked information critical of a Republican, but now they're leaking information critical of Democrats, they're a "highly political organization" that's carefully timing their leaks. Or did you forget how Wikileaks came into being? When they leaked information about the Bush administration? I swear, it's like people on the Internet have the memory of a goldfish.

Since people are going to inevitably make the accusations: I'm not a Republican, not a Trump supporter, and also not a Democrat, and not a Clinton supporter. Also not an Assange supporter (he's a jackass who's just claiming the US is going to extradite him to avoid facing the charges and to keep himself in the limelight), though WikiLeaks itself frequently serves a useful and necessary purpose. I just think people are so blinded by partisanship they can't see that both sides of the political aisle in the US are corrupt, self-serving corporate sellouts who need to be replaced.

Comment Re:The New Normal (Score 5, Informative) 337

Did you literally not even read the first sentence of the damned summary? UC Berkeley is removing the content because the federal government requires any content they provide to be handicap accessible. Since it'd cost a prohibitive amount to make this content accessible, instead of keeping it up (which benefits 99% of the world) they're removing it because that 1% (or less) might have trouble accessing it. In other words, instead of content that was available to 99% of people, now it's available to 0% of people. In other words, instead of nearly everyone winning, and no one actually losing, everyone loses.

Comment Re: Rank reputable sources (Score 1) 183

No, the consensus of scientific facts says AGW is true. Scientists are in consensus because the facts are in consensus. There are areas of science where the consensus hypothesis is not yet backed up by facts, and the scientists involved recognize that fact (and as a result usually devise many, many scientific experiments looking to confirm or disprove the hypothesis). The Higgs boson is a recently confirmed example of such a hypothesis. AGW, however, is well-supported by a *huge* body of scientific evidence, not just opinion.

Slashdot Top Deals

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson