Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Big surprise some jackhole Silicon Valley (Score 1) 224

"My pitch" is entirely "this other lawyer says I have a case, but he personally can't file it for me. Will you look at what he has prepared and consider filing it for me on contingency?" and the answer to that is "no". I personally don't know a fucking thing about the matter other than that someone else who's supposed to know better says I've probably been wronged and that he personally is barred from righting it for technical reasons I don't understand, and all I want is for someone to look at his pitch, and they won't even do that.

Comment Naming updates (Score 1) 205

M$ should really take the idea of naming updates and run with it, like Anniversary Update, as if anyone gives a shit that it has been a year since they released their latest over-hyped bug fest. Call it Stinky Elephant Dung or Rainbow Kitten and people are still going to use it, and have problems with it. Next time maybe they'll go full-DPRK and name something the "Bill Gates is God Edition," or just show all their cards and release "Microsoft Owns Your Computer, Bitch. Edition", and you'll have no choice whether to install it or not. But that still isn't as lame as Apple naming crap after big cats, as if that would make the OS more fierce or something.

Comment Re:This is the year of the extreme climate claims (Score 1) 410

"But they call us names!" Science doesn't work that way.

Who said it did?

Let's look at the post I replied to again.

You call them corrupt fascists. They call you stupid frauds. Let's not pretend you're here for a serious discussion.

It's like you're not even reading this thread. Look at the above name calling rationalization. That AC just said it.

The point is when you keep treating people like crap and not talk science, some people are eventually going to just give up talking science to you.

When are you or other ACs in this thread going to start talking science? It's evidence-based not name calling-based.

And why should such complaints appear in this thread? The earlier poster that I originally replied to and the article they linked to just irrationally libeled people (and the poster didn't even have the right target libeled). This isn't science. It's noise. It's not going to convince anyone. It's not going to save the Earth.

Comment Is this Project Fi? (Score -1, Offtopic) 129

This Google Fiber they're talking about has nothing to do with the Project Fi wireless service, does it? I've been using Project Fi after dumping AT&T, and I'm really liking it. But then, after AT&T, I'd probably be really liking two tin cans connected by a string, so the bar is pretty low.

Comment Unacceptable! (Score 4, Funny) 98

This sort of reckless openness in communications sends the message that so called 'disasters' are a free-for-all for pirates, child pornographers, and terrorists.

Any right-thinking citizen would agree that a few unimportant people staying buried in rubble is a small price to pay to secure the internet against intellectual property theft and anonymous communication by evildoers.

Comment That's honestly pretty surprising. (Score 1) 135

It's not a huge surprise that the reliability of Apple widgets isn't appreciably better than high end Android gizmos; Apple is hardly the only company in the world that knows how to shove a bunch of solid state hardware into a tight space; and to the degree they are atypically skilled at it they usually end up focusing on extra skinniness and similar aesthetic considerations that don't necessarily enhance reliability.

What is surprising is that 'Android devices' as a whole would perform so well. It is the blessing, and the curse, of Android that pretty much anyone can slap it into almost anything; and vendors take full advantage of that. I would have expected the floods of dire crap to drag down the average reliability rating considerably.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 585

once stopped me in my tracks by saying

It got you to shut up. So it worked. Who knows, he might even believe it too!

I think it also demonstrates the perversity of morality. His "fuck them" attitude, if real, is still probably less harmful than your "let's do it for the children" attitude. After all, those future generations will be able to do that, find their own fucking power. But if we hamstring our societies for frivolous moral reasons (which is where we're heading with climate change mitigation), we'll commit concrete harm to those future generations that merely burning a little more oil can't do.

Here's the problems I always see with this sort of moralizing:

1) No evidence that global warming or other climate change is big enough compared to other problems like overpopulation, poverty, habitat and arable land destruction, etc. There is a remarkable lack of evidence to support the claims of harm.

2) Disregard for the demonstrated dynamic that poor people have more kids and poverty leads to overpopulation which is the biggest problem facing humanity. Among other things, overpopulation is the reason that human-induced climate change is a problem in the first place.

3) Disregard for the cost and ineffectiveness of climate change mitigation. When one looks at Germany's Energiewende, the Kyoto Protocol, carbon emission markets, renewable energy public projects, etc, one sees a history of remarkably costly and useless virtue signalling, often combined with cynical exploitation. There's no regard for how to implement any sort of mitigation measures in a way that doesn't harm billions of people nor regard for the outcome of such projects.

So sure, tell us how your beliefs are going to make the world a better place. But if you really are interested in making the world a better place, then maybe you ought to pay attention to what we're doing now.

Slashdot Top Deals

DEC diagnostics would run on a dead whale. -- Mel Ferentz