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:If it works (Score 1) 244

I totally agree. Modern physics luminaries like yourself and I understand that nothing that we know ever changes, that chemical propellant is the pinnacle of universal space flight technology, that Newton had everything correct, and since Newton had everything correct then Einstein was wrong in the first place and therefore this story about his so-called "theory" being challenged is fundamentally flawed. Einstein was a space nutter and should have stuck to the stupid patent office. I don't know who this Stephen Hawkins fellow is but he sounds like a real idiot.

Comment Re:Not worried (Score 1) 93

It's very telling of the American popular mindset that not a single mainstream movie out of Hollywood

Yeah, and if there's one group of people who can really understand and capture the mindset of the common American, it's Hollywood.

Also your "bit of a gap" is rapidly approaching a decade, with no end in sight.

There are a few ends in sight. One of them is called Dragon 2, another is Dream Chaser, another is Orion, another is CST-100.

Comment Re:What does he think this is, Apple?!?!?!?!? (Score 5, Funny) 388

The rooftop was about four stories up -- the pedestal section of the 12-story high-rise -- but the man fell only about 20 feet to a balcony below, Lt. Harold Webb, with Seattle Fire, said.

And that's a perfect example of the lack of motivation which management was concerned about with this employee. This isn't going to look good on his next performance review.

Comment Re:Popcorn time! (Score 4, Informative) 1321

The popular vote is meaningless. It would only be meaningful if it actually counted, but it doesn't. Voters know that we have an electoral college, and there are a lot of voters in states that are virtually guaranteed to go a certain way (California, New York, Texas, etc) who stay home because they know their vote isn't going to change anything. If the election was actually decided on a popular vote, THEN we could use that as some metric of determining popularity. We can't use it because people know that it's not a popular vote, and a lot of people stay home because of that.

We DO know that Trump and Clinton are the #1 and #2 most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling, we do know that. We also know that Trump beat Clinton. We know that Clinton lost a national election to someone who is totally unqualified to be the president. We know that too. But it's kind of stupid to look at a difference in votes of less than 2% and use that to claim that Clinton is more "popular" than Trump. She very well could be.

Comment Re:Popcorn time! (Score 1) 1321

Of course she's unpopular, why do you think she lost to Donald Trump? Can you name another candidate who would actually be able to get nominated, who would then lose to Trump? I've seen all of these articles about why the Democrats lost the election, and they also seem to be missing the obvious reason: people just don't like Clinton. We've had, what, 30 or so years to get to know her? Well, we did, and we don't like her. That's why she was the #2 most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling, right behind Trump himself. She lost to him because people didn't like her enough to go out and vote for her, which meant that everyone who either believed Trump or hated Clinton got their victory. That's why voter turnout was at a 20-year low this time. People didn't like either candidate, and a lot of people stayed home, but people in more competitive states turned out for Trump. Obama got something like 12 million more votes in 2008 than Clinton did, and keep in mind that she was running against the single most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling. The DNC shot themselves right in the face by nominating her, hopefully she goes away now and the Democratic party decides that they want to represent large numbers of people again. But, who knows, she lost in the primary once to Obama, then Trump beat her, hell the Democrats might just decide to run her again next time. It's her time!

Comment Re:Computer scientists don't understand sociology (Score 1) 1321

there is no paper trail to allow the results to be audited and scrutinized

This map shows the 12 states where that's true (assuming you go for electronic instead of paper in the red states):

And maybe the 3 yellow states, whatever "with and without paper trail" is supposed to mean. There are 13 states that allow electronic with paper trail only, and 21 states without electronic voting.

Comment Re:Yeah, this is a real head-scratcher (Score 1) 1321

Actually, she lost in all kinds of places. Oklahoma, for example, she did not win a single county. It looks like Oklahoma uses paper ballots. She also lost every single county in West Virginia, which uses paper or machines with a paper trail.

Here's a list of the states using paper ballots, and who got their votes:

Montana - Trump
New Mexico - Clinton
North Dakota - T
South Dakota - T
Nebraska - T
Oklahoma - T
Minnesota - C
Iowa - T
Michigan - T
Alabama - T
New York - C
Maryland - C
Vermont - C
NH - C
Mass. - C
Conn. - C
RI - C
Maine - C

The paper-only states are the ones colored gray here:

For reference:

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 1321

Most of my friends are die-hard Republicans, but I don't know a single person who (admitted) voting for Trump.

I think that word you put in parentheses is the important one, and the reason why most polls got everything so wrong. Trump is distasteful enough as a person that I think he had a lot of support from people who didn't want to admit it because they didn't want other people to judge them for it. I'm sure that some of Clinton's voters were the same, but I think Trump had significantly more of those types.

Comment Re:By what definition? (Score 1) 154

Yeah, Trump is talking about grabbing pussies but some random programmer in Arizona is the actual problem.

A person's personal anecdote does not disprove human nature.

I think you mean "a person's personal anecdote does not disprove my baseless analogy", but it sort of does.

Comment Re:Installation cost? (Score 1) 191

At $2.50 a gallon (seems to be current US price?), 300 gallons a day costs $750.

If you're buying it at a pump in the US, sure. If you have to load it onto a plane and send it to the easternmost volcanic island in the Samoa chain, it's going to be a touch more expensive. In Hawaii, for example, (which contains major air and sea infrastructure), diesel is over $4 per gallon. American Samoa is about 2600 miles from Hawaii, or 1800 miles from New Zealand. A chartered flight to the airport on this island from the capital of American Samoa is about $4,400 (obviously, not including the cost of getting the fuel to Pago Pago first). The runway is only 3200 ft / 975 m, so you can't exactly land a C-5 there. In fact that runway is less than half the length required for a Boeing 707. This is the kind of plane that could use that runway, with a maximum cargo capacity of around 8,000 lbs, or about 4200 gallons of diesel, or enough for 2 weeks of power generation. So they need a flight every 2 weeks at least carrying around 4200 gallons of fuel at a time for whatever cost they can get the fuel (probably over $4 per gallon), plus the cost of the flights. That's 26 flights per year. Anyway, the cost of the batteries is definitely less than 10 years of fuel flights, in fact it's probably closer to 3 to 5 years. That's the return on investment (plus the cost of the panels and associated writing and maintenance).

I guess they could also get fuel by boat rather than plane, although the island's 2 boat harbors look like this and this, so they aren't exactly docking a supertanker there.

Comment Re:By what definition? (Score 1) 154

If what Mr. Trump said was true (grabbing them by the pu**y) there would at least be a court case.

Is that how it works? The only reality is what goes on inside a courtroom?

Double so when you have people like Clinton, who destroyed women her husband was guilty of sexual assaulting, telling people that they have to believe the accusations.

No, I'm sorry, that never happened. The reason I know that is because there would be a court case. The only case filed against Clinton was for sexual harassment, by Paula Jones, not sexual assault. And if Hillary had "destroyed" women that her husband was guilty of assaulting, then there would be a court case against her, too.

Because that's how reality works. Also, I've never smoked marijuana in my life, because if I had, there would be a court case.

Of course, there was that one lawsuit against Trump for attempted rape in 1997, but I guess that one doesn't count because it was settled (although Clinton also settled his case with Jones, so I guess that case doesn't count either). There was also Ivana's sworn deposition that he violently raped her, but I guess that one doesn't count either because after Ivana agreed to a divorce settlement then Trump's lawyers convinced a book publisher to include a note saying that the word "rape" should not be interpreted in "a literal or criminal sense." I suppose Trump's lawyers know better on that one. There's also that lawsuit from a woman who says that Trump and Jeffrey Epstein raped her when she was 13, but that one doesn't count either, because it was filed during his campaign. Lawsuits that are filed when someone is running for office don't count and are always baseless and fictional.

But yeah, no court cases, which definitely proves that Trump has never done the things that he himself has said he has done.

Those accusations are all extremely weak (you can read) so I'd say not plausible that he's guilty.

If you don't mind, I'd like to tap your legal expertise on an unrelated matter. Bill Cosby - do you think it's likely that he assaulted at least one woman?

Comment Re:By what definition? (Score 1) 154

And the one concrete example that Trump gave of a specific woman, who refused him, somehow does not disprove your "theory" that they are talking about "exactly that type of woman" and that "that type of woman" wants people with money or power to fuck her in order to advance her career. The only example either person gave of any individual woman was one who does not fit your ridiculous stereotype of what you imagine women to be like.

But, yeah, I can't follow a simple 30 second conversation. Right, attack me, not the obvious and basic error in what passes for "logic" in your arguments.

How about those ACs who shot down your "theory" of what a sex party is like? They're also wrong, aren't they? It's not that you have ridiculous ideas about what you think the world is like and just assume that all of them are true, right? It's everyone else who can't see past their biases, not you.

Slashdot Top Deals

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.