Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Wow, really? (Score 1) 409

I like the general idea, but I don't think "compactness" as defined there is the best option, where it's based on a 2D map. Geography matters. It'd be pretty silly to have a "compact" district that requires some of its residents to drive around a mountain range to go meet with their representative, for example. Even in that article it's obvious that Harrisburg is bizarrely cut in two, and one of the "compact" districts in Maryland spans both sides of Chesapeake Bay. I think it'd be better to choose some population centers or the like -- the district seat -- and then define compactness based on driving distance.

Comment Re:Bots (Score 2) 164

"Study participants were recruited through posts to various subreddits. Participants were required to be a registered Reddit user. Their account must have been created at least a week before installing the browser extension in order to remove the potential for malicious users."

So unless those were some really sophisticated bots that could understand the calls for participation and decide to participate and then follow the instructions to sign up, I'm pretty sure all of the study participants were human. Bot behavior isn't included in this study.

Comment Re:How can I see the underlying Game-of-Life? (Score 4, Informative) 87

https://sourceforge.net/projec... Golly is an excellent resource for exploring the GoL. Download it, and go to patterns > hashlife > metapixel to find some implementations of GoL as calculated by GoL glider NAND gates and various derived structures. It's fascinating to watch unfold and frankly beyond my comprehension.

Comment Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score 1) 332

Huh? You mean this? "Expecting an environmentalist to endorse open pit mining with radioactive tailings is not realistic"?

So, first off, you think Drinkypoo is the sole arbiter of what constitutes liberal views? And you think liberalism can be reduced solely to environmentalism and has nothing to do with economic policy?

Both of those stances are pretty bizarre, and that's ignoring that I never suggested we should just allow unregulated open pit mining and dumping of nuclear waste just anywhere. We should still do what we can to mitigate the environmental consequences of nuclear energy.

But you know what's also bad for the environment? Open pit coal mining. And lithium mining. And really just mining in general, which is unfortunately needed for all sorts of things, including for "green" energy options.

There's always going to be trade-offs. The only way to completely eliminate the environmental consequences of human activity is to completely eliminate humanity.

Comment Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score 1) 332

When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.

I support universal single payer healthcare, a strongly enforced regulatory framework for environmental protection, a good social safety net to provide economic protection, and higher taxes to pay for our public infrastructure and services. I also strongly support the expansion of nuclear energy as part of the solution to deal with AGW. I've stopped donating to environmental advocacy groups that come out against nuclear energy.

Comment Re:The opressed can not opress (Score 5, Insightful) 566

The problem is that when I look in a dictionary, it says that racism is prejudice or discrimination based on race, and that sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender. And that's how lots of people use those words. The Bustle article you linked to even says, "Sure, men might experience discrimination, bullying or even disparagement of their gender," which is literally sexism.

But you, and others like you, have added "institutional or systemic" to the definitions. And then you tell other people that they're wrong if they use those words without that implicit addition.

What I call racism you call prejudice based on race (which is the dictionary definition of racism). And what you call racism I call systemic racism. I've met plenty of people who will readily acknowledge that systemic racism and sexism exist and are important problems. They'll also readily acknowledge that white men in America cannot be victims of systemic sexism and racism (although the patriarchal system is detrimental to men in various ways, but that's another discussion). They just use slightly different language than you do.

Trying to impose a new definition on words that are thoroughly entrenched in our language makes you come across as an asshat and makes people stop listening. Maybe this whole conversation would go better if you didn't tell an enormous swath of the country that their consensus definitions are wrong and just resigned yourself to putting the word "systemic" in front.

Slashdot Top Deals

May all your PUSHes be POPped.

Working...