Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Similar (Score 1) 185

I guess everything is extremist relative to something. What's with all these hypocritical Anti-Murder-Extremists running around saying I can't kill people! SOME OF THOSE HYPOCRITES GIVE LETHAL WEAPONS TO SO CALLED COPS TO STOP PRIVATE CITIZENS FROM KILLING PEOPLE!

Extremism in my view is violence, not demanding a reduction in pollution.

Comment Re:Similar (Score 2) 185

Um, the point is, dare I say this, that there's very hard science and there's soft science. There's findings which are highly testable, repeatedly, and there's findings which are verging on the non-reproduceable.

No. "Soft sciences" refers to fields which arrogant scientists feel are less deserving due to subject matter, not reproducibility. Social sciences are described as soft science.

Your opinion on social science as a "real" science is up to you, but reproducibility is an issue no matter how "hard" the science is.

I used to believe global warming 100% and assume it was all correct, because I normally trust science, but then started to wonder why people were touting consensus and virtual certainty.

Because obviously scientific findings don't change society by themselves. At a bare minimum, you must publish your results or the scientific findings may as well have never been made. With even non-controversial findings, scientists need to do more, results simply don't speak for themselves, you need to write review articles placing the findings in context, issue press statements in journals, present it at a conference. And that's just to get it known within the scientific community in the absence of opposed nefarious interests.

With climate change specifically, you have powerful industries and motivated ideologues trying to cast FUD on the findings. There's an effort to convince the public that it's far from certain. This approach is having it's intended effects. Scientists and people who realize climate change is happening would be idiots to merely keep presenting dry papers when the public is convinced by scumbags in suits saying "Well, they don't REALLY know do they?"

Comment Re:Similar (Score 2, Insightful) 185

Your knowledge of how science works comes from sci-fi movies and conservative propaganda.

Science especially doesn't involve data that have been "adjusted" to benefit certain political movements or to increase the likelihood of getting grant money.

You've never read any primary scientific literature or grant applications...

And science really doesn't involve extrapolating a couple hundred years' worth of "adjusted" data across thousands, millions, or even billions of years.

You've never read any books on evolution or geology....

There are too much politics involved.

You've never read anything about medical research...

We want to discuss real science, backed by hard facts, non-adjusted data, and untainted observation.

You've evidently never talked to any scientists of any kind either and may have never talked to any real human before. There is no such thing as "untainted observation." If you're observing it, you have your own spin on it. "Non-adjusted data" similarly is a myth. Look out your window at the world. What does the world look like? WRONG. Unless you're on a boat in the ocean, that's not what most of the world looks like. In order to get a real understanding of what the world looks like, you can't just pick the first thing that you see, you need to... adjust it.

You come off like a kid who is telling people how adult relationships should go based on his extensive watching of porno movies. You're arrogant to be dictating on things you don't know about, you look silly, and you're in for real disappointment unless you persist forever in your ignorance.

Comment Re:Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important (Score 1) 343

There does need to be a modifier for action movies and probably some other genres of movies.

I mean, "Debbie does Dallas" has far worse acting and plot than anything in superman vs batman I'm sure, but I don't hear whining about DDD. Why do people accept you watch one entirely for the "action" and shitty quality otherwise is okay but not the other?

Comment Re:Wait a minute... (Score 1) 235

You use bandwidth without paying for it.

If you had google music or youtube red there wouldn't be ads.

I do agree that it's messed up. Even the dumbest Americans should be capable of realizing that running ads during a youtube video doesn't equal approving of the content. But we didn't have so many idiots, we wouldn't have the problems we do today.

Comment Re:One more time? (Score 1) 127

I assume someone last time pointed out that itunes music managed to make something of a profit despite music piracy being really really really easy.

Most consumers don't pirate. A lot of those of us who do tend to do it less when paying is an option. When I pirate, it's entirely because of extra hoops I have to jump through like having to sign up for cable to watch HBO to watch game of thrones, or "no you have to go to the movie theater to watch that movie you want to watch or wait a few months."

Some people will pirate even given other options. But paranoia about that tiny segment of the consumer population isn't justified and is a stupid reason not to do this.

Comment Re:Direct to video (Score 1) 127

Why are you so sure it would do that? Tiers of movies haven't had much to do with release method in a while. Studios will still be able to promote blockbusters just as much as they do now and ignore direct to video types just as well.

It's not like they show a trailer for some big movie and the voiceover proudly announces "This one is NOT going straight to video! That means it's good probably!"

Comment Re:Maybe I'm missing something. . . (Score 0) 102

(in the future)
"SpaceX landed humans on mars."
Me: AWESOME!
"Yeah, but they USED GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO DO IT! They were supposed to use PRIVATE FUNDING!"
Me: Sorry, couldn't hear your boring blather about boring money sources, too busy thinking about how awesome it was that we landed on mars!
"Well see, taxes-"
Me: BLAH BLAH BLAH MARS BLAH BLAH BLAH MARS!!!

Comment Re:All these bans are useless security theatre (Score 1) 248

If the point is to spread terror, the destroying an aircraft seems to be more effective than blowing up a queue. Not only is the visual of an aircraft crashing to the earth more vivid, but it demonstrates that security itself is ineffective.

People tend to forget that the last time that happened, the terrorists didn't have any bombs whatsoever. They just bluffed. 9/11 worked because everyone assumed hijackers would try to live and everyone was safer going along with it because that's what had happened before. Security was ineffective because it's basic assumptions were turned upside down.

That would be exactly true of the gate lines today: we assume terrorists would only care about the plane because last time they only cared about the plane, so we completely ignore another gaping security flaw. The number of terrorists it would take to bring down a plane could probably be more "effectively" used at separate airports in the pre-security line.

Hope I'm not giving Trump ideas here for how to unite the country behind him...

Comment Re:What's the plan, Stan? (Score 1) 201

I don't give a goddamn fuck about changing people's hearts and minds. The MRA sexists, the alt-right nazi fucks, the 4-chan high school trolls, the genuinely unhinged infowars people, and the thousands of people who simply want to threaten people online can continue with their shit forever. Great, more power to them. I think they should bring back 4-chan, and make a bunch of other #-chans for them. Infowars should make it's own twitter. Those idiots weren't realizing they would be doing everyone a service by shooting themselves in the head while they were on twitter.

But on the actual twitter, hateful and bigoted people can turn people worth following away. I dunno, it's just a hypothesis I haven't investigated. But I'm more than willing to risk it. If getting rid of a million Milo and Spencer type alt accounts causes even one educated, rational person to say "Hey, maybe Twitter ISN'T a complete cesspit and I should try it," THEN WELL FUCKING WORTH IT.

Comment "innovation" (Score 1) 65

When did silicon valley define "innovative" to mean "Almost as boring as the same old shit"?

This jet.com for example appears to be amazon as it has existed since 1998, except prices are going to be even harder to figure out. Oops, I'm sorry, I mean "ALGORITHMS! MAGIC! "LOWER" PRICES!"

When you say "innovative" I think new like the first iphone after I had a fliphone, or like CRISPR DNA editing. Tech bros say innovation though and mean "This iphone doesn't have headphone plugs!"

Walmart pretending to be "innovating" means we should probably just give up the word entirely, it's fucking dead.

Comment Re:"We" are forcing quality down ... (Score 1) 65

Technically that is we the consumers that are doing that. Offshoring, low quality, etc ... those are not CEO choices, those are consumer choices.

Call me cynical, but I keep going back to the MIB quote: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Consumers as a mass of people don't make "choices." In big groups, we behave more like a herd. A stampeding herd of cows doesn't "choose" to run off a cliff, the collective is dumber than any individual. It's up to the ranchers to make decisions for the good of the cows.

... not that I expect CEOs to actually make decisions for the good of society unless they're forced to. Just that I really really really don't think consumers are capable of it.

Comment Re:But which kind of stroke? Too thin or too thick (Score 2) 41

I found this link. Ischemic is blocked and Hemorrhagic is bleeding. It sounds like there are signs of either and a CT or MRI can discriminate between the two. I assume there are borderline cases where they can't make a call, maybe like in minor stroke cases? Which I'm assuming yours was?

In any event, I'd be surprised if stroke was the only application for this. I'd assume this would be useful for other parts of the body deprived of blood flow. From my limited understanding, blood block and tissue death can happen in hernias in the guts, fingers and toes with certain blood pressure medications, and probably a bunch of other places.

I'm not a real doctor, so no idea if this is something that would only be useful in brains in a stroke, just seems like the potential uses for it are more than just one big thing like strokes, even if it's unlikely to ever be used to treat anything. (Most drug candidates turn out to not be good for anything really.)

Slashdot Top Deals

Take an astronaut to launch.

Working...