Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:It Doesn't Work That Way (Score 1) 267

Moore to the point, Moore's law was an observation of a natural trend. This is the opposite, typical of so much legislation.

Moore's law is like having a speedometer needle showing the speed, or a thermometer showing the temperature. Legislation which tries to change society pretends changing the observation will change reality: move the needle to slow down or speed up; move the pointer to raise or lower the temperature. In reality, you need an entirely different device to do that.

"So let it be written, so let it be done" sounds good in movies, but it don't do squat in real life except muck things up.

Comment Re:Retaliatory measures based on no evidence. (Score 1) 821

Very well put: "Basically the only reason you like the electoral college is because it makes your vote count more than the vote of someone who you don't consider as fully human enough to have equal say in a democracy." I'm not even saying the electoral college is "wrong," (I would have stopped short of fully human as overbroad—no part of our federal democracy is majoritarian and that's not necessarily bad :) just that you capture the distortion that is applied. I do think it is time to revamp the system; this popular/electoral vote split is just embarassing.

Comment Re: Castro dead (Score 1) 279

99.7, such a believable (and unverifiable) number. I'd like to know who dreamed it up and how they justified it. Was it people who recognized the alphabet?

Any post relying on such a dubious statistic is suspect right off the bat.

Comment Sour grapes (Score 5, Insightful) 1430

Clinton and Trump campaigned in the swing states because that is what the Electoral College encourages. The popular vote "imbalance" is a mirage. If they had been campaigning for the popular vote, if there had been no Electoral College, the campaigns and the results would have been different in ways we can't imagine.

To change the Electoral College process now, after the popular vote is over, is sour grapes.

Comment Re: Castro dead (Score 0, Troll) 279

Hopefully Trump won't renew the economic oppression of the Cuban people.

Unsure how to respond. If you mean is Trump the heir to Fidel, the answer is no. If you mean the stupid embargo, that was the best thing to happen to Castro; he couldn't have asked for a better justification to continue his own oppression of the Cuban people.

If you actually do think Castro was good for Cuba, you are sadly ignorant. Batista's Cuba was famous for literacy and doctors per capita, compared to the rest of Latin America, so Castro's improvements were pretty small, he killed far more people, and destroyed all chances for improvements.

Maybe you are one of the who thinks Che Guevara was heroic and cannot see the irony of selling t-shirts with his picture.

Comment Re:Energy budget (Score 1) 151

Yes, dropping stuff from orbit is easy -- unless you want it to survive. Then you need as much structure as payload. This also doesn't account for the raw materials -- how do you get that to the orbital factories? This is, by definition, heavy industry, not smart watches. Cars, trucks, steel stock, drilling machines -- nothing small and light.

Thus my question about the energy budget.

Comment Energy budget (Score 3, Interesting) 151

I understand the allure of separating heavy industry from people and parks and nice things, to centralize the pollution. But if you put heavy industry in space and most people still live on the ground, it takes an incredible amount of energy to get the raw resources into orbit and bring the finish products back down. If you mine the moon or asteroids, that still takes a lot of energy to get to space-based factories. If you put the factories on the moon or near the asteroids, that's still a lot of energy to ship finished products back to earth or orbital habitats. If you put the factories on Earth near the resources, it's a lot of energy to get the finished products up to orbit.

Besides, factories pollute a lot less now than they used, they are getting cleaner all the time, and we rely on heavy industry, percentage-wise, a lot less than we used to, and all these trends are going to continue.

And if energy becomes so cheap (fusion, cold fusion, who knows) that all this shuffling is practical, then it would also be practical to simply pour all that energy into making heavy industry even cleaner. The problem with cutting pollution isn't the idea, it's doing so efficiently, and with cheap energy, efficiency becomes more relative.

So what am I missing? What is the actual benefit to separating heavy industry and people?

Comment Re:Supply and Demand - where is the demand? (Score 1) 425

Several million times a year, guns are used to deter or prevent crime. Most of those are merely showing the gun or announcing its presence. Very very few of these make the news, because they are boring. But they work because guns are simple and effective. If all guns were smart guns, they'd bo so unreliable that very few criminals would be deterred by them, and crime would skyrocket.

On, and all your police would be be effectively disarmed too. Unless of course you think police (who commit more crimes off-duty than conceal carriers) are more responsible than "civilians".

Fuck off, slaver who is too stupid to think.

Slashdot Top Deals

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.