Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Makes sense (Score 1) 60

Except we are talking about Microsoft so the 2019 version will have 2016 technology (i.e., it will be low resolution with an annoying screen door effect, nauseous low frame rate).

For VR to be usable beyond 5 minutes of gimicky showing off, the per eye resolution needs to be at 5K and the frame rate at least 120 fps with under 50 millisecond responsiveness.

I doubt we would have those technologies by 2019, we can't get 4K working how are we going to have dual 5K displays rolling at 120 fps by 2019?

Comment Re:What's wrong with this people? (Score 1) 576

That was like 90% of the country at the time. The rest was unhappy because race not sex, but it's great how you try to conflate the "struggles" of white women, the most privileged creatures to ever walk the earth, with those of the 2nd and 3rd generation offspring of slaves.

Comment Re:What's wrong with this people? (Score 1) 576

You think this sort of behaviour happened before? Then, for the good of humanity, can you share the secret to faster-than-light travel because you clearly hail from a different planet.

No I'm saying we had many, many cultural mores to prevent this kind of shit from happening. Just off the top of my head we had:

1. Preferences against women (of any quality) in the workplace.
2. Preferences against casual intercourse.
3. Preferences against unmarried men and women being alone together.
4. Shame in being involved in a non-monogamous relationship.
5. Incredible shame in having people know about your involvement in an non-monogamous relationship.

Of the 5 rules I listed, are there any that you like or agree with? We have cultural rules like this in place because otherwise a not insignificant number of men will act like the man in the article. You knock out every cultural safeguard to prevent this kind of behavior and then you're shocked when this behavior occurs because the guy didn't care about the one rule you do care about.

Is there something special about the 1950s which makes them some sort of high point?

Men and women were happier then. That was before feminism ruined both and "freed" women from being chained to the stove so they could be chained to the call center desk instead.

Comment Re:I'm not surprised. (Score 2) 576

Really? Then why was it OK when Bill Clinton had sex with an intern?

The price of shame — March 2015

At the age of 22, I fell in love with my boss, and at the age of 24, I learned the devastating consequences.

The Republican weaponization of Clinton's misdeed was to claim that this behaviour made Bill unfit to govern. (If powerful men having extramarital affairs with young women was incompatible with leadership, well, the vast sweep of history does not so record.)

Family values aside, the power imbalance creates the risk that Bill would abuse his immense power to cover up the vastly exaggerated blot on his record. The Republicans actually knew that anyone with an accurate base rate of human history / human culture would not regard his behaviour as incompatible with leadership—though a common and damning blot nevertheless, so the tactic was to escalate the stakes until Bill felt compelled to lie about it—which, unfortunately, was extremely easy to anticipate.

Lying to formal body of review is considered incompatible with leadership, sort of, incrementally, since not all that long ago. For example, it barely extends as far back as the Reagan's Iran–Contra affair. (Some people roll with family values and view Clinton's offense as the worse offense. I happen to roll with geopolitical transparency, and so I view Reagan's offense as the worse offense—he appointed those clucks, and it was his ultimate responsibility to know all the big shit).

Bill was plenty smart enough to figure out that the public perception battle would play out exactly as it did, leaving him boxed into a corner where he could—according to his established character—only choose to lie (perhaps he overestimated his power to blow off the investigation, but even there, had he succeeded, he would have mortgaged a sizeable fraction of his presidential energy in ruthlessly defending his momentary gratification).

Clearly, his judgment in this matter fell short of the mark by any standard.

However, I rate it not quite as bald as boasting about sexual harassment with a camera rolling. Whatever Bill purportedly said to Donald on the golf course (that was "far worse" in Donald's personal judgement), there was no film at eleven after the fact.

The modern world contains a lot of cameras and microphones. Trump's world has contained many cameras and microphones since way back. A prudent man in his position wouldn't be openly bragging about his magical power to get away with sexual harassment just to impress Billy Bush. And it's not like Donald didn't have a front row vantage point on Bill sinking his own boat through which to consider and amend his own standard of personal conduct. Donald had every opportunity to know better, and the penny never dropped.

So in summary, a whole lot of things are "not okay" but still the world largely spins as it has always done for thousands of years.

Comment Re:What's wrong with this people? (Score 1) 576

As long as they are both OK with it, whats YOUR problem?

You're right about these desires being "natural." In Victorian England fucking around meant death by syphilis. Syphilis is natural, too, so what's your problem with it?!

My problem with this story is that it exists. Install social mores about how people have sex that, in addition to other benefits, prevent nice women from being propositioned disrespectfully. Remove social mores because "OH MY GOD WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM!?!" Be shocked when nice women are propositioned disrespectfully.

You not getting ANY?

I'm a traditionalist Catholic with a good job and a beautiful blonde wife who stays home, takes care of our kids, and cooks me amazing dinners. My sex life is none of your business.

Comment Re:What's wrong with this people? (Score 1) 576

Actually I blame feminism/leftism in general, which gave everyone involved the idea that any of this shit was okay and would not result in exactly these problems.

People are animals. So society invents moral codes and customs to tame their animal behavior, prevent conflict, and channel their bad impulses into productive activity. Then short-sighted idiots come along and say "ugh, this is terrible! How dare you tell me what to do I can do whatever I want!" Enough short-sighted idiots go along with this, people stop following the rules, and then start crying when human animals act like animals. "Why are people acting like this!" Because they're people. We had rules to stop this behavior from occurring but you didn't like them, so now you get shit behavior. Start following the rules designed to prevent shit behavior and the shit behavior will stop.

You also ought to get over your puritanical moralizing about monogamy. It's not for everyone.

By what right did you call the guy a scumbag? You ought to get over your puritanical moralizing about begging subordinates for sex. It's not for everyone.

I wish this story could be broadcast to the people of the 1950s. "A company is getting ruined because female engineers are getting harassed by a pervert? Okay, first off, what the fuck are 'female engineers?' We don't have enough male engineers? Why aren't they home taking care of their kids instead of slaving at some stupid company for perverts? They wouldn't be getting harassed then now would they? Okay, okay, so now about this pervert, why doesn't he just have his own woman? Wait he does? Okay so he's cheating on her why what a piece of...hold on an 'open relationship?' She's having sex with other men...and he knows about now he's hitting on everything in a skirt...THIS IS WHY WE HAVE RULES GODDAMNIT!!!" and they'd kill every feminist on sight and we wouldn't have these problems.

Comment Re:ECC (Score 1) 244

No boot ROM means that a hardware device constructed from discrete logic and analog chips directly demodulates digital data from the radio, addresses the memory, and writes the data. Once this process is completed, it de-asserts the RESET line of the CPU and the CPU starts executing from an address in memory. Really no ROM!

Slashdot Top Deals

In Nature there are neither rewards nor punishments, there are consequences. -- R.G. Ingersoll