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! ×

Comment Re:NSF (Score 1) 352

... they're loathe to put in any extra effort to make it work.

They're not rewarded by grants, salary, promotion, respect, or tenure for putting in any extra effort to make it work. What really matters is getting more grant money and writing new papers. They're effectively punished for spending their time doing anything else.

Comment Success! (Score 1) 372

Who was it that said, "You haven't really succeeded until the Department of Justice comes knocking on your door"? I seem to recall having read that back in the 90s, regarding Microsoft.

Anyway, congratulations Google. You've really made it now.

Comment Re:How many issues caused by Apple's restrictions? (Score 1) 240

There's a straightforward way around security concerns - sandboxing (which is already avaliable on iPhone OS) together with Appstore admission process (which can easily make sure that the apps to which it might apply use sandboxing properly). Don't kid yourself why Apple put that limitation (and has taken it much further recently)

And what's with Facebook? It's consistently among the top pages viewed under Opera Mini... ( )

Comment Re:Total awareness? (Score 1) 204

Not a hippie: "Save on paper towels. The tree you save could be your next roll top desk" is one of my favorite woodworkers' expressions. : )

My point was more oriented toward fellow mammalia. The essence of your point "why people pretend they know what [other animals] feel like" could be applied between ever individual of the human race too, "why people pretend to know what other people feel like...", but then science shows us there's something built-in to the biology to do it: and the point isn't to do so exactly, precisely, just approximately, "accurately enough". Kick a dog in the ribs and see what happens, kick a human likewise and see what happens. Also, your use of "feel" is as amphorous as popular speech, so if we're going to be speaking of scientific matters, please define; when I say feel I'm speaking of physical sensation, not emotion or cognitive evaluation: most people muddle-up all these things and then speak without cognizance of any and it's something I'd like a law for, authorizing beatings for all such "thinkers". Some other animal creature--just because of the difficulties we'll stick to mammalia--may not evaluate a sensation of "pain" exactly as we, but that doesn't mean they don't sense it, or share such a sensation, and pretending that it's completely unknowable is a return to gnosis and is the sort of academic pretense and overprecision (in many cases) for which men get rightly mocked: especially the inevitable self-righteous-like responses, such as "pretending to be able to know what something else feels like" sort of "I'm better and more a thunker[1] than you" demonstrations, as you've just put on display.

Precision or equivalency is not the criterion for commonality or empathy, or mutual understanding: if such were, there would be no communication or interpersonal or cultural sensitivity or awareness; science deals with imprecision and precision alike, and if you've philophically bungled these you'll produce the sort of snarling non-starters and holier-than-thou "preaching" as that I've just critiqued.

[1] Yes, it's purposely spelled that way (just in case).

Slashdot Top Deals

Disk crisis, please clean up!