Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Tonnage (Score 1) 186

They say it can transport about 100 tons. That's not much for a colonization effort. The Mayflower that transported the pilgrims to America was rated at about 180 tons.

Yeah I can't imagine how they're going to be able to be successful, what with the requirement that they can only carry supplies that were available in the early 1600s.

In all seriousness though, I would expect that the first several ships are going to be unmanned supply ships, and that the people would make the journey only when there are sufficient supplies and they've had repeated success landing the things on Mars. If they have 500 tons of supplies from the 21st century waiting on the surface then I'm sure they can be better stocked than the Mayflower passengers.

Comment Re:Comment (Score 1) 305

Good lord. Way to miss the point. Ok then...

Problem is, many actors get discriminated against in their 30s, considered too old.

So, why exactly is that a problem? Who gives a shit if they want someone in their 20s to play a character in their 30s? Again, are you going to force them to hire actors that they don't want to hire? Here, let me just paste my entire comment that you ignored because you didn't like which part I quoted.

So the solution is to force people to hire actors that they don't want? I don't understand what you think the problem is, do people who decide to move to California and become an actor have some sort of inherent right to do the work they want? Maybe California should just pass a law saying that any actor needs to be given any part that they audition for, I'm sure that will fix the problem. Maybe the actors can even dictate their own pay too. If there aren't enough parts, then the California government can just force the movie studios to make more movies that no one wants to see just to give jobs to actors that no one wants to hire, because those people apparently need government protection.

So, why exactly does the government of California feel that they need to spend their time dictating rules about actors ages? Because movie studios hire younger actors to play older characters? Boo frickin' hoo. If that's what people want to see, why wouldn't they do that? Is it also a problem that they hire older actors to play younger characters? Do you think the California government needs to spend time drafting and enacting and enforcing legislation to make sure that actors get hired to play characters close to their own age? Is that considered a good use of government in the bubble in which you live?

Comment Re:Bandiwidth is *free* fallacy.. (Score 1) 224

Once sufficient bandwidth is in place, it costs an ISP nothing if you're downloading at 1 MB/s or 1 GB/s.

That's not exactly true. The equipment is still using power regardless of whether or not it's transmitting anything. They could charge people flat rates based on rough estimates of how many users it would take sending "normal" (however that gets estimated) data to fill the equipment. If 1,000 users could each transmit at 1mbps through their equipment before it reaches capacity, then they could charge each user 1/500th of the cost of the electricity that equipment uses, for example. They would make a profit when a lot of people are using their network, but would lose a little if it's well below capacity. In reality they want to charge many times that, though. It seems like it's almost to the point where any individual user could pay for all of the power for the equipment they're using.

I remember back when cell phone companies charged a price per text message, the calculations were done to show that it cost more to send 1MB of SMS data than it did to get the same amount of data from the Hubble telescope. ISPs and cell carriers will always want to charge as much as people are willing to pay, I don't think any of them tries to come up with a pricing scheme were people only pay for what they're actually using (as in, what it costs the carrier) plus a little extra for profit.

Comment Re:Yup (Score 2) 305

If I claimed that I always followed every law then I would be a liar.

If you don't like Joe, we'll take him.

Good, please do. Write to him and let him know where he should move his campaign to. And take his legal fees also.

All he does is enforce the laws that the Federal government won't.

Turns out that's not actually *all* he does. He also uses his power to intimidate his political opponents, hires private investigators (on the public's dime, of course) to dig up dirt on his political opponents, hires family members for big prison contracts, and yeah, openly violates court rulings that specifically block him from certain actions, like target Mexicans because they're Mexican. He's a wanna-be celebrity sheriff more concerned with a photo opportunity than doing his job. Go ahead and figure out how large the backlog for processing rape cases is right now. Instead of processing rape cases he would rather investigate Obama's birth certificate. If you want him, take him.

Comment Re:Comment (Score 1) 305

Unless you've got star power behind you, you're pretty much fucked, and might as well get a job being a gaffer or boom operator if you want to stay anywhere in the field, or relegate yourself to TV roles.

So the solution is to force people to hire actors that they don't want? I don't understand what you think the problem is, do people who decide to move to California and become an actor have some sort of inherent right to do the work they want? Maybe California should just pass a law saying that any actor needs to be given any part that they audition for, I'm sure that will fix the problem. Maybe the actors can even dictate their own pay too. If there aren't enough parts, then the California government can just force the movie studios to make more movies that no one wants to see just to give jobs to actors that no one wants to hire, because those people apparently need government protection.

Comment Re:Yup (Score 3, Interesting) 305

Recently in Wisconsin, our Republican Gov and Legislature had to reimburse Planned Parenthood over a million dollars for legal expenses when the latest anti-abortion law was thrown out.

Luxury! Here in Arizona we have a sheriff who openly violates court rulings, gets hit with contempt of court, and our lawmakers still approve $50 million or so of taxpayer money to fight his legal battles.

Comment Re:these new companies trying to get around old la (Score 5, Insightful) 258

skipping the dealer allows the manufacturer to set the price. and they would never fix the price with a defacto monopoly, right?

Haha, what? You're whining about a manufacturer selling their product for whatever price they want to sell it at? Tesla "fixing the price" on their own products that they make and sell themselves, that's funny. How does a single company "fix" the price? They don't "fix" the price, they set the price, that's the price, anyone can buy it at that price. You might as well whine about McDonald's "fixing" the price on a Big Mac because they cost the same anywhere you buy them.

Tesla doesn't have a monopoly on electric cars, and they don't have a monopoly on cars. If they want to set the price of their cars at $100,000, fine, they won't get a ton of sales but if they make a profit then why do you care? If they want to compete with other car manufacturers then they can lower the price, or they can design another model which costs less to produce so that they can reach a bigger market and still make a profit. Guess what Tesla decided to do with the Model 3. Go ahead, guess.

Tesla doesn't have a monopoly on anything except Tesla cars, and you don't have some right to buy a Tesla car for $10k if they don't want to sell them for that much. Don't bitch and moan about old laws that were bought and paid for that shouldn't exist any more. The car market at this point is too big and has too many competitors for price fixing, because if that happens there is a major opportunity and incentive for one of those many competitors to undercut everyone else and make huge sales.

Comment Re:With all due respect to Mr. Hawking and us... (Score 2) 280

In fact, we achieved a manned trip with a successful return less than 1 lifetime after we first achieved controlled, powered flight.

I think about that a lot, I think it's pretty crazy that humans have had some form of civilization for tens of thousands of years, and we only learned how to build a machine capable of controlled powered flight just over 100 years ago, and it was only a little more than 50 years after that when we put people on the moon. It took so long to get the understanding and technology needed for the first steps, and after that it just took off (literally!). It's pretty amazing. It's also pretty amazing that there are people out there who think we know everything by now.

When people say FTL isn't possible, time travel isn't possible, etc. they do so because they know what they're talking about.

Just like everyone thought that Newton knew what he was talking about, until Einstein came along. We're always going to have people who are capable of thinking about things in a way that no one ever has, and those people are going to once again figure something out that no one else had before. Maybe one of those things is going to concern moving from one place to another in less time than would be possible if you actually traveled that entire linear distance.

I'm not going to try and argue with you whether or not any human today knows how to travel large distances through space quickly, but if you're going to try to argue that the things that we know today are never going to change then I think your entire premise is stupid and ignorant of history. The amount of things that we don't know about the universe is staggering. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you as much.

Comment Re:just one thing to say (Score 1) 610

Johnson could be polling at 50% and they would still find a way to argue that he shouldn't be in the debates. The media needs to grow a set of nuts and get back to actual journalism instead of relaying the day's talking points. The 2 big parties need to be held to task for excluding other candidates from the debates, but the media won't touch that story or else their own debate access and participation and access to the candidates will be ripped away.

Comment Re:just one thing to say (Score 1) 610

This is a winner take all least separately within the two elected branches. That is the reason we have a two party system.

I don't think that's correct. Presidents have come from 5 different parties. George Washington was not a member of any political party, because they didn't exist then, and the Constitution says nothing about them either. They aren't necessary for the kind of system we have, they came about on their own. In 1832 4 parties got electoral college votes. In the next election a Democrat defeated 4 Whigs who got votes. From 1844 to 1860 either 3 or 4 parties got votes in each election. 1880 had 3 parties with votes, 1884, 1888, and 1892 each had 4, and that went on well into the 20th century. In 1912, for example, the Democratic, Progressive, Republican, Socialist, and Prohibition parties each had candidates in the election. T. Roosevelt formed the Progressive party after leaving the Republican party. In 1968 George Wallace of the American Independent party got 46 electoral votes. The last non-D/R to get electoral votes was in 1972.

After 1972 our elections look very boring. This two-party crap is a new thing for the country. It's not how the system was designed, the Ds and Rs decided to seize power and make it this way. They did that in 1988 to make sure that only they got elected.

It's not because some malign agency made it that way.

Yes it is. The malign agency is the Commission on Presidential Debates. Read the "Criticism" section of the above article. This part sounds pretty malign to me:

At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.

The vast majority of American electoral history is against you on this.

You have that exactly backwards. It's only the very recent history that is against 3rd parties, and it was manufactured to be this way by those in power in order for them to stay in power.

At worse, they muddy up the waters and only serve as spoilers for one of the candidates.

Considering that the country is supposed to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich, hopefully they spoil both candidates.

Comment Re:just one thing to say (Score 1) 610

Here's an article that has some graphics and things that show how fucked up this election cycle is:

I already knew this was true (although the last poll I saw had these people as a majority), that the major reason people are voting for either candidate is because they aren't the other one, they're voting against the other person instead of for the one they want.

The top concerns about each candidate are also pretty predictable. Trump supporters' biggest concern is his temperament, and Clinton supporters' biggest concern is her honesty. No surprises.

I literally laughed out loud at the last graph, and then became sad that this is the way it is:

If Trump wins, 59% of respondents will be disappointed or angry.

If Clinton wins, 49% of respondents will be disappointed or angry.

Look at the other lines in that graph though - among Trump supporters and Clinton supporters both, there is a non-zero number of people who will be disappointed if their candidate wins. Among Trump supporters there is even a non-zero number of people who will be *angry* if he wins. I don't know if those results reflect upon the intelligence of the respondents and their ability to comprehend the questions, or take into account the apparent fact that some Trump supporters are angry no matter what, but it's funny. It goes the other way too, for both groups of supporters there is a non-zero number of them who will be relived or excited if the other person wins. But according to the link to the actual study, and based on my expert analysis of the pixels in the graph, both of those results are probably within the margin of error (with the possible exception of Trump supporters who will be disappointed if he wins, which I can understand).

This election is a joke. I don't hold it against you or any of my other friends who wants to vote for Clinton or Trump, but I just can't stomach either of them and I don't like it when people try to tell me that voting for another candidate (as opposed to staying home and not voting at all, for example) is either a waste of a vote or a vote for some other candidate. Just like a lot of people are voting against one of the candidates, I'm voting against both of them.

Slashdot Top Deals

try again