Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:liar (Score 1) 371

Wikileaks has said they have stuff on the RNC.

But nothing at all salacious. Assange said everything they have on Trump is the same stuff he says publicly.

The US intelligence agencies have said they found evidence the RNC was also hacked.

This is /. We don't believe things US intelligence agencies say here.

Trump is careless and no doubt has given ample opportunity to collect incriminating material.

Trump doesn't use email, and there's no evidence he's engaged in anything criminal.

You're buttmad about Trump so all of a sudden the CIA is good guys who we can totally trust with no evidence and Wikileaks is evil Russian bad guys because the CIA says so. Trump Derangement Syndrome has knocked an awful lot of /.ers' tinfoil hats off, and they really need to get those glued back on.

Comment Re:Maybe he would return (Score 1) 371

prison system focused on rehabilitation

Because rehabilitation doesn't really work. The vast majority (like 85%) of people who have any contact with the justice system never again have contact with the justice system. Even a weekend in the drunk tank does it. They are scared fucking straight. So "rehabilitation" doesn't do anything for them...they don't need it. The other 15% are repeat offenders who are too stupid to engage in long term planning (we're talking IQs in the 70s and 80s here), so they go right back out and commit crimes because they are mentally incapable of thinking ahead to the consequences. So the best option is removal from society. Put them in jail where they can't hurt people. But you can't "rehabilitate" stupid.

Comment Re:WHat I said on ars: (Score 1) 371

Eh, the lefties on /. decided Assange is a bad man now that he exposed the corruption of the DNC and Hillary Clinton, allowing Trump to win the election. They loved Julian when he was exposing Bush era war crimes, but as soon as he exposed their corruption they got mad. So mad they're actually believing evidence-free claims from the CIA about scary Russian cyberhackers. Before this election those three letter agencies were four letter words on slashdot, but now if you don't with 100% certainty believe Putin personally hacked the entirety of time and space to elect Trump then oh my God who are you to doubt the conclusions of the US intelligence community?! I mean, would they lie to you?!

Used to be if the CIA said the sky was blue slashdotters would stick their heads out of the basement to check. But Trump Derangement Syndrome has got them believing anything the spooks jizz in their ears.

Comment Re:WHat I said on ars: (Score 1) 371

And what pray tell is Hillary going to be pardoned for?

Bribery. Selling political favors for donations to her foundation and speech money for Bill.

She's been investigated more than any candidate in US history, and if there was something to bring charges against her over, it would have happened by now.

You're begging the question that the only reason charges were not brought against her are because there's nothing to bring charges over. No, the reason charges are not brought is because politics, not because of innocence. There is an established pattern of companies and foreign governments who had business before Hillary's state department who gosh, never seemed all that interested in hearing any of Bill Clinton's speeches before, but suddenly felt like paying him 3x his going rate for some that fine, fine speechifyin'. And then as soon as the business was decided in their favor, they coincidentally never bothered to want to hear from Bill again. Oh and now that the Clintons are out of power the Clinton Global Initiative is shutting down. I wonder why? Wouldn't they have more time than ever for "charity work?"

That's enough to indict. You don't need a smoking gun, just a pattern of behavior. If you see a pattern of people pulled over for what would be a $100 speeding ticket who all get left off with a warning who then just happen to drive over to the police officer's daughter's girl scout cookie stand to buy $50 worth of cookies, I don't need a recording over the quid pro quo to indict for bribery/corruption, just the fact that pattern was followed enough times is plenty.

We have that pattern clearly established with the Clintons. And you can indict a ham sandwich. If this ham sandwich is not getting indicted, it's because someone is choosing not to indict. And you acknowledge this in your next sentence. If the Trump administration doesn't pursue her it won't be because she's sweet innocent Hillary who dindu nuffin: it'll be a political decision.

So we can absolutely keep with the Clinton Crime Syndicate rhetoric, because they are criminals, just like the Bush family is criminals, but they stay out of jail not because they're innocent but because the putrid, corrupt Washington political machine they're all part of won't jail them for fear of mutually assured destruction.

Comment Re:EVEN TILLERSON says it's real. (Score 1) 227

That's always the problem with your "unless/except when it isn't" routine. It's a cynical statement, but that's all it is. It doesn't support the assertion, but it does't refute the assertion either. It also neither supports nor refutes alternative ideas and assertions to explore.

Exactly. You mostly get it. MightyMartian is not the only reader of Slashdot and thus, not the only person I'm writing for.

But this is not cynicism. This is purely a logical observation. I could equally assert that the Grays (a particular species of aliens that supposedly anal probe human test subjects) are behind global warming. Or God is angry at us for Facebook and turning up the thermostat. When unfounded, assertions are equally useless to us.

When evidence and reason are introduced, I then actually have to defend those assertions with something. I'm sure it'll be amusing to hear me explain how the Grays are hiding their giant coal burning mothership behind the Moon (obviously NASA is in on it!) or God's giant hand is just as completely undetectable to us as is the vast knob of his thermostat.

Then you can decide just how crazy I am.

And then you wonder why people are still so adamant on their side, despite all the work you've done arguing against them.

MightyMartian isn't going to be rationally talked out of a position he/she didn't get into rationally in the first place. But maybe next time, there will be more to that post (and who knows, maybe some persuasive evidence even!) than just a touchie feelie assertion.

Comment Re:The Issue is Settled? (Score 1) 227

is supposed to generate 1.2C

Sounds like it's more than 1.2 C which is why I used the higher numbers. And your math has sharply improved. Even with the lower number of 1.2 C per doubling, you will not get a 0.1 C increase in temperature from increasing CO2 from 400 ppm to 500 ppm. It'll be just under 0.4 C.

To add a third increase of 1.2C, we need to get the concentration up to 2240ppm. There's not enough oil in the world to get CO2 concentrations up this high.

Not in proven reserves, at least. There's also coal which does have enough. But at this point, we're speaking of using a lot of fossil fuels for a long time to get that level of direct radiative effects.

Comment Re:Explore the ocean depths (Score 1) 98

But even on DS9 you still had Sisko's dad's restaurant. With wait staff. How did Sisko's dad get the property for the restaurant? Why is anyone "doing what they love" busing tables? And on a daily basis to have a functioning restaurant? Again, people acting like they're participating in an economy. I don't know what a post scarcity society would look like, but it wouldn't look like Star Trek.

Getting to near light speed is probably feasible even with current technology. It doesn't need a lot of acceleration, just a constant one and you'll get there in a few years. It would take a lot of energy - but if you're fleeing for your species, who cares ? Use up all the stored energy earth has, why not - it will be worthless after you're gone.

Not a chance. Remember you don't just need energy you need reaction mass. Stuff to throw out the back of the ship (usually violently) in order to make it go forward. And when you're just starting out pushing the ship you have to accelerate all the reaction mass you'll need to get near light speed and then turn around and decelerate. The only hope for anything like what you're describing would be that EM drive thing, which is reactionless. Just add electricity and you apparently get thrust. We'll see if it works in a vacuum. I'm still thinking it's having a very, very tiny reaction with the earth's magnetic field and will not work in space away from a magnetic field, but we'll see. If that works, then yeah. Mine the moon for He3 for easier fusion reactors and you can carry all the energy you need to zip around the solar system and maybe even beyond without having to carry reaction mass.

But no, with today's proven, working technology any significant fraction of light speed is impossible. You can't carry enough reaction mass to accelerate and decelerate all your reaction mass.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 767

I guess really, I'm asking, do partial pardons exist?

Yes. The pardon powers granted to the president are very broad. Also they're rarely challenged because presidents are usually very careful about wielding the power, and it's not often in anyone's interest to challenge the pardon. What the president's constitutional powers really are is whatever the Supreme Court says they are, but whenever the president pardons someone, they just let the person go and that's the end of it. No prosecutor is going to appeal the pardon to even get the case in front of the Supreme Court, anyway.

Slashdot Top Deals

Elegance and truth are inversely related. -- Becker's Razor