Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

Comment Re: Bradley Manning needs a HOSTS file (Score 1) 360

Yes there is. It's not a right-left test, but there's a near-perfect match between gender and specific neurological features. In a higher than expected number by chance, people who think they are mentally female are female in structural and functional studies. Likewise, people who believe themselves male have a male brain.

I try not to get too annoyed at dogmatic statements, but unless I specifically defer, I have a comprehensive archive of published literature from high-standing sources. Don't rip on me unless you know either my interpretation is wrong (it happens) or you plan on publishing a peer-reviewed rebuttal on each particular of relevance.

The first of those has happened a few times. Let's see if you can bring it up into double digits. Feel free, but remember that you're dealing solely with article facts and my interpretation. Where I used other sources, pick any peer-reviewed paper that covers the same basic aspect of brain development concerned (i.e. neuron type is indicated by chemical transmitter, it is not hardwired into the genome. Doesn't matter if it is the one I used or not. Falsify it. Better yet, falsify it and get the scientist or magazine to retract it for further work.

Ok, you should now be at the point where you accept the data sets I used. That just leaves two options. If the seat of the mind is in the brain, then a female brain must have a female mind, regardless of Y chromosomes, appendages and birty certificate.

The only other option is to falsify that, to argue that the mind is independent of brain. If you choose this, please choose to announce it at a medical school outside the brain surgery department after a very taxing practical, shortly before exams. Contrary views are nothing to worry about.

Finally,You can just let the basis be, the chain of reasoning be, but then you have to accept the conclusion.

Let me know your preference.

Comment This is insanely obvious (Score 1) 360

Manning should get a full pardon and a medal of honour. S/he has done more for this country than Biden ever did, and that was after getting a forcible deployment against regimental doctor's orders.

The worst Manning is truly guilty of is exploiting severe violations of DoD regulations by the unit s/he was in. Those violations, and not her actions,compromised national security, as did Manning's superior officer. Those people were under strict orders on not deploying the severely mentally ill into Iraq and to withdraw clearance from such folk, but violated those orders in order to look pretty. That is a serious crime. A crime they, not Chelsea, are guilty of.

Under DoD regulations, computers holding top secret information may NOT be secured by just a password and may NOT support USB devices. I was working for the military when they did the cutover from passwords to passwords plus Class III digital certificate on a smartcard. The USB restriction has been there more-or-less from the introduction of USB, as it violates Rainbow Book standards requiring enforceable multi-level security.

I should not have to point this out on Slashdot, half the three digit IDers were probably involved in writing the standards! And the rest know all this because we had to look the bloody stuff up to get the NSA's SELinux working!

She was also under orders, remember, to ensure that no war crime was concealed by the military. Concealing a war crime, even if that's your sole involvement, is a firing squad offence under international law. Has been since the Nuremberg Trials. Nor is it acceptable to be ordered to carry out such a cover-up. You are forbidden from obeying such orders on pain of death.

Those are the rules. The U.S. military's sole defence is that nobody is big enough to enforce them. If someone did, the U.S. population would be noticeably smaller afterwards. We know that because of Manning.

But Manning's service doesn't end there. Military philosophers, tacticians and strategists will be poring over those notes for decades, running simulations to see when, where and how the U.S. was eventually defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq. They will compare actions carried out with the military philosophies the U.S. officially abandoned in favour of modern theories. They will search for ways in which the new approaches worked and where they should have stuck with the traditional.

Because modern computers can run millions, even billions, of tactical simulations in just a few hours, it is certain that, inside of a decade, someone will have done this and published a book on where the military went wrong and where the Taliban and Iraqi army went wrong as well. This core material allows for that.

These wars may turn out to be our Sun Tzu Moment, when through cataclysmic defeats at the hands of, essentially, barbarians (and make no mistake, they're defeats), a systematic analysis of all that went wrong will be conducted in order to produce a guide on how to have things guaranteed to go right.

Without Manning's data, this couldn't happen. Direct footage, real-time tactical information, logistics, international political interactions, there's enough there to actually do that.

I'd prefer it to be us, because nothing stops the next terror group to form from performing the same study. Historically, it has been shown that a smart army can defeat a confident opponent with superior technology and ten times the numbers, or with inferior technology and a hundred times the numbers. No reason to assume these are hard limits.

If it is us that figures it out, the Pentagon (still fixated on Admiral Poyndexter and his psychic warriors) won't be involved, it'll be people on the outside with more nous and fewer yes-men. And for that, Manning deserves the highest reward.

Besides, it'll annoy the neoconservatives and that's worth their weight in gold-plated latium.

Comment Re: Bradley Manning needs a HOSTS file (Score 1) 360

Define "male". Not in terms of social norms - those vary between societies. And, since you didn't accept the suggestion of a genetics test, you don't get to use that either. Historical records are of no interest, you weren't there when they were made so you can't vouch for them. Besides, plenty of species have individuals change gender. History proves nothing.

You could try a neurological test, but I'll wager you that it shows Manning to be female. The feelings come from the brain, there's no such thing as a spirit outside of hard liquor.

So what have you got to offer?

Comment Re:Con? (Score 2) 401

They cheated if they broke the rules. Without knowing in details what the rules were, we can't say whether they cheated.

However we do know that a judge who knew in detail what the rules were required them to return the money. This being a civil case, we don't know if what they did was criminally illegal.

Comment Con? (Score 1) 401

Con:
Persuade (someone) to do or believe something by lying to them.
A confidence trick ... is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence, used in the classical sense of trust.

I don't see where he lied, so I think the word is misapplied. The second definition comes a little bit closer, but casinos are very much aware that gamblers are adversaries, not allies.

Comment Making America great again (Score 4, Insightful) 129

What do people mean when they say "make America great again"? My understanding is that they want a USA which is making new innovative industries, employing lots of people in the USA with high paying jobs, and making profit in the process (the more the better.) Elon Musk is the poster child for doing all of those things - yet many people crying "Make America great again" are trying to tear him down. The kindest explanation is that they are so blinded by ideology that they can't think straight.

Comment One bit doesn't make sense (Score 2) 101

"This would give SpaceX three landing pads and the ability to bring back all three Falcon Heavy boosters to land while also retaining the option to land one or two on drone ships in the Atlantic Ocean."

I can imagine scenarios where you'd want to land zero, one or three boosters on drone ships. I can't imagine any scenario where it makes sense to land two boosters on drone ships. One way would be to have the center booster and one side booster landing at sea - but if one side booster can return to landing site, so can the other (and landing on land is both cheaper and safer if you can do it.) The other way is to land both side boosters at sea but return the center booster to land - but the center booster is always going to be much harder to return to land, as it burns longer and so is higher velocity and further down range when it has finished boosting.

Comment Oversold (Score 3, Interesting) 148

Here's the most relevant bit:

The team was able to compress small flakes of graphene using a combination of heat and pressure. This process produced a strong, stable structure whose form resembles that of some corals and microscopic creatures called diatoms. These shapes, which have an enormous surface area in proportion to their volume, proved to be remarkably strong. “Once we created these 3-D structures, we wanted to see what’s the limit — what’s the strongest possible material we can produce,” says Qin. To do that, they created a variety of 3-D models and then subjected them to various tests. In computational simulations, which mimic the loading conditions in the tensile and compression tests performed in a tensile loading machine, “one of our samples has 5 percent the density of steel, but 10 times the strength,” Qin says.

The video is about testing 3D plastic models. Exactly what they have achieved is unclear to me. Do they have plastic in a configuration 10 times the strength of steel? Did they 3D print in steel, but didn't show it in the video? Did they extrapolate from a plastic model to say that if they'd made it of steel it would be 10 times the strength of steel? Did they use a computer model to say that if they could make the optimal graphine configuration it would be 10 times strength of steel?

Comment Re:Would be nice... (Score 1) 75

They then began loading cold helium. Had the oxygen stayed liquid, it would have squeezed out (expected behavior). Rather, the oxygen wasn't able to seep out fast enough, and the increasing pressure caused some of it to solidify, blocking the escape of oxygen from the CF.

So if I understand the logic of these tanks correctly: The He tank necessarily is at high pressure relative to the LOX tank, as it will be pressurizing the much larger LOX tank as it empties. CF is strong enough to hold the tank together against this pressure, but can't prevent seepage through it. The aluminium layer prevents gas escape, but contributes little to the structural strength of the tank - hence when filled, it expands like a balloon until the CF prevents further expansion, which necessarily compresses the CF. (Because LOX will seep through the CF to contact the inner layer, the inner layer has to be something which plays nicely with LOX, and aluminium does so, but this is probably a happy coincidence rather than a reason why aluminium was chosen.)

An alternative fix would be add an outer aluminium layer (which could be very thin) to prevent LOX getting into the CF. However, the integrity of this outer layer would be critical - if it leaked a little LOX in, it would impede its exit when the tank pressurized, which would likely cause explosive failure.

Comment Re: Keep it original... (Score 1) 304

There isn't, and indeed can't be as every stage in creating art is art, but storage space stopped being an issue a long time ago. Film archives could keep copies of every movie ever released. That would be perfectly reasonable. This would ideally be both uncut and cut versions, maybe the rush copy as well. This frees up small studios from having to have complex archives, frees up directors to produce new cuts from a choice of every possible angle of every take, even from deleted scenes, and unmerge/remerge the audio layers as more complex audio systems appear.

However, if you don't do that, I think "world heritage" needs to click in a lot sooner. Star Wars (the real movie) could easily have been considered world heritage status within a couple of years.

Where undo/redo facilities exist, they should exist to the extent that it's possible to revert to an earlier checkpoint and then play back a different development line.

Does anyone really think that the ancient Babylonians would have cared about one of their cities being blasted into rubble thousands of years later?

But it does matter to those there now, the past always shapes the present, and it will matter in the future as there was a vast store of knowledge that scholars can now never see and that makes a big difference in understanding how conclusions were reached, what some of their more obscure documents meant, and where the hell they came from to begin with. It's important for other reasons, but it's hard to explain in ways that would make sense to people focussed on the future. Just accept that forgetting is a very bad thing.

So, anyway, it matters. And it will still matter when the destruction is as close to the construction as the destruction of the original Star Wars tapes was to their construction. The interval doesn't matter.

Was George Lucas the original artist? Most of the cells in his body would have been replaced, his bones would have regenerated, the DNA in his brain cells would have new genomes. The person exists only as a virtual construct, but that means there's a new George Lucas every time he experiences anything, since the machine running the simulcra - and therefore the simulcra itself - changes with experience.

There is no soul, there is only a construct that can be activated and deactivated by medical science at will.

Slashdot Top Deals

The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes.

Working...