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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:"Research Projects" (Score 1) 29

The problem is that all these attempts to interest kids in STEM are so earnest and dull.

What we should be doing is tempting them with mad science. You see? It's not all death rays and monkey testicle implants.

It's important to hook them by middle school, when the all important sense of being misunderstood is its keenest.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 241

the supposition is that at least some subset of people operating self-driving cars will be people who never touch the controls (perhaps are not allowed to touch the controls),

Once again, you speak from a position of authority which is completely devoid of evidence. How many people are currently using self-driving cars without the ability to operate a vehicle?

GP says "will be"

You say "are currently"

You also claim that there's no evidence for their argument, but that's only because you are spectacularly willfully ignorant. This is actually the definition of level 5 autonomy.

Comment Re:Rights vs. Facts (Score 1) 92

And white conservatives wonder

Some may, but the many white conservatives are quick to assume and project, denigrating the subject of the beating by sneering "you need a safe place snowflake?" and shouting "DEPORT THEM!".

Oddly enough, white conservatives are the ones that squeal the loudest if they are unfortunate enough to experience a rights violation. I do not think any rights violation should evoke schadenfreude no matter the subject, but I do sometimes have to remind myself of that. I am bitterly disappointed that as a society, we can't agree that skin color shouldn't make a difference in your rights, or that being "illegal" somehow strips the protections of law such as a lawyer, speedy trial, and other rights. The reasons these should apply to anyone citizen or not?

Because there are more than 10,000 citizens illegally deported. The next one could be you.

Comment Not unheard of (Score 3, Interesting) 68

We already know that the liver will regenerate itself, and no special dietary restriction is necessary (though you do have to be kind to your liver).

If you cut a chunk off of someone's liver, it will grow back. We've learned this from Hepatitis C patients who have Stage 3 fibrosis or even cirrhosis. Cure the Hepatitis C (which is possible now with the new, expensive, drugs) and the liver will come back from the functionally near-dead. It was once believed to be a one-way process, but it turns out it's not.

Comment Re: Why stop at $50? (Score 1) 206

I have a special-needs child. A sitter that is qualified enough can be costly. It definitely tips the cost of the night over the proposed $50 home-based setup.

That changes everything. But I imagine you have better things to spend $50 on. The need to see something the minute it comes out is something I never understood, but then I spent a good deal of my younger life watching movies that were made before I was born.

I wish you well, friend.

Comment Rights vs. Facts (Score 3, Insightful) 92

One my have the "right", but to any annoyed cop, that won't stay the baton to the face, the chrome bracelets, and the ride to jail. As the saying goes, "You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride." Until immunity is limited, and some type of consequences attain to violation of the law, bad actors in LEO will continue to behave badly. When a cop violates the law, and the taxpayers fund their defense even in the most egregious of circumstance, there is little motivation for departments or individuals to root out and stop abuse from bad cops. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

We are fortunate that there are few bad actors, but we are unfortunate that their brothers and sister officers are usually very reluctant to report those that are.

Comment Re: Texas Catch 22 Injustuce System (Score 0) 92

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent "In legal systems based on common law, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts" and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... A bit technical for many, but the idea is, if challenged it keeps going higher and higher in the legal system.

"Clearly established" in the case is just empty bullshit waffle, the judge clearly was avoiding the stupid statement, "no precedent has been set so no precedent can be set" basically IMO a chick shit judge who simply passed the buck. What he did establish precedent for, was 'a precedent can be set if that precedent has not be set', what a schmuck.

Slashdot Top Deals

You do not have mail.