Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Bad news (Score 2) 415

This is bad news as these fact checkers have proven to be just as biased as any other news souce such sa MSNBC or Fox News. They are fake authorities to decide what is true and what is not. This will lead to ever more tighter group think in the left leaning segments of the society while the right leaning segments will get alienated even further by what they call "mainstream media" institutions. It only takes one false positive identification of "fake news" to discredit this as cencorship by any right leaning person. (And trust me, the bias is there, so the false positive is something that will annoy right leaning people, not left leaning.)

In short: Don't do it. Please. Instead try to work it so that people get exposed to other points of views.

Comment Re: They didn't succeed though (Score 1) 667

Christ, you guys sound like the naive Obama supporters in 2008.

The president is not going to save you. He's not the messiah, he's not even a dictator. You're supposed to vote for the better person, the smart one, the one who knows what they're doing.

I'm the first to admit that Hilary isn't really smart enough or good enough to be a good president, but Trump isn't even close.

Donald Trump is really smart. Denying it is denying the facts. Here's Marke Halperin's analysis, which nails it:

Comment Re:They didn't succeed though (Score 1) 667

Do you know who came up with 'Drain the swamp'?


I decided to check this. Turns out that when Mussolini was talking about 'Draining the swamp', he meant that he wanted to... drain a swamp. Like a swamp with still water and mosquitoes. They had a problem with malaria, which was (and still is in Africa) a real killer.

More information here:

You need to calm down with your hyberpole about Donald Trump. He's quite a personality but a Mussolini he is not.

Comment Re:The Majority Still Has Follow the Constitution (Score 1) 1083

And again, I reiterate what I said earlier. Where do rights come from?

You're missing the whole point of what the founding fathers and the US constitution was attempting to create.

These inalienable rights "come from" nowhere. They exist innately and the constitution was written largely to express this, and to prevent laws from being created which would stifle or try to remove them. The social construct aspect applies insofar as to how to balance things when the desires or actions of one person impact the rights of another person.

Funny thing that the majority opinion that you are defending clearly says that these rights are social constructs and not only that but that they are found.

Comment Re:well.. (Score 2) 760

This ain't the US. Finland does have a justice system that deserves the name.

Money doesn't buy you a get out of jail card there.

To make this statement you would need to have intimate knowledge of both Finnish justice system and US justice system.

Your "example" about money shows that you don't have knowledge of either of them. Finland's justice system, and obviously so for those who pay any attention, is quite corruptible and incompetent. It is wasteful and inefficient. This statement is backed by the fact that I do live in Finland and I do pay attention to our legal system.

I do not know how our system compares to others. I can fully expect similar problems with other legal systems as they also are run by people.

By the way, just to make a point about you silly point about "money buying out of jail card": In Finland white collar crime usually goes unpunished. In rare cases where it is punished, the punishments are in range of "fines or 2-20 months of jail time." Compare this to Mr. Madoff rotting in jail the rest of his life or 150 year which ever is shorter.

Comment Fear mongering (Score 1) 290

a possible arms race that could lead to a nuclear war

Yeah. For the clarity to other readers, this statement is not supported by any logic nor by any argument. It is just that "some analysts" (i.e. probably some dude the author met in a pub) say that something could lead to "nuclear escalation". It is there to attract eye balls and clicks. Now that we have agreed that the whole talk about "nuclear war" or "nuclear escalation", we can focus on discussing this pretty cool sounding hypersonic weaponry stuff.

Comment Re:Mr. Thiel (Score 1) 441

Mr. Thiel,

You were born rich to obviously rich parents who could afford to send you to Stanford for your undergraduate and graduate degrees.

You're still rich today.

Congratulations. You did not lose your fortune, something almost impossible today due to favorable taxation for the wealthy.

Once you're rich you stay that way forever in the United States unless you're a very stupid person.

The 99%.

The fact that he has wacky ideas does not surprise me. Rich people are born that way, being given every advantage in life. People don't get rich by being particularly intelligent. They pay people to do everything for them, and unless they're very stupid they get much richer in the process.

Please make even some rudimentary research before posting stuff like this. I know that social mobility is not that large in US but to imply that Mr. Thiel doesn't owe his fortune to his smarts and character is just silly. He's been making good bet pretty consistently, been optimistic about future and exemplary in his way of trying to achieve something by his own work. You can disagree with him on certain matters but if you are willing to read what he writes, you will have to admit that he's pretty smart guy. Also, his family was just a normal middle class family with father doing chemical engineering.

Comment Re:Zero emissions (Score 1) 695

It's time for the alarmist side to stop pretending there are any policy choices on the table to prevent the warming they are predicting.

What the *fuck* are you talking about? There's plenty of stuff that can be done. The only reason that they're not being done is that the wealthy would have to foot the bill, and they don't want to.

Good to know. Would be so kind and tell us what these solutions are and how the wealthy are stopping us from putting them in practice.

And then a note to everyone modding parent Insightful: I know that you are having your monthly Let's Blame It on Rich field day here. But I think that you could even try to pretend to have an intelligent discussion here. Like if someone says "I don't think there are solutions" then an answer saying "Yes there is but rich folk are not allowing them" does not count as a constructive discussion.

Comment Re:more pseudo science (Score 1) 869

Oh this is rich. The AC calling the scientists ignorant about how the peer review process works. Nice try AC, but GP is right, peer reviewers systematically try to tear pretty much anything that comes their way to shreds. I'm a scientists, and not only do I see this happening to my papers, I do the same to the papers I get to review. Extremely critical reviewers are an essential part of the scientific process.

Contrary to GP, I feel it's normal that it's so difficult to get a paper published. What is not normal is that scientists are under such high pressure to get so many papers published per year; the process could benefit from some "slowing down". But that's an entirely different discussion.

It is well documented that climate science circles are small and papers with a right conclusions are easier to publish as papers with the wrong conclusions.

The fact that in your field the process works well, does not mean that it works well in another fields.

Comment Re:more pseudo science (Score 2) 869

Hopefully in a journal that is reviewed by skeptics rather than Ideologues.

All scientific journals are reviewed by skeptics.

That's because all scientists are skeptics.

This is just patently false.

James Hansen, one of the leading scientist sitting on top of the time series, called for trials of energy company executives for "high crimes against humanity and nature". When a human commits himself to such political ambitions, it becomes much harder to objectively accept position which would undermine the strong political stand he's taking.

Or how about the personification of "climate scientist", Michael Mann? Well, he refers to his fellow scientist who are not sharing his preconceived opinions as "not helping the cause".

These examples does not speak about scientists excising scepticism but more like political activists doing group thinking.

Comment Re:The Re-Hate Campaign (Score 1) 1116

Reposted because of moderation abuse. Mods, at least READ the comments you're modding down. When a group of people is trying to put words in your mouth, lying about what you're saying

Sir, your abominable messages equating gay sex to bestiality have to stop. I understand that you try to convince others of normalcy of gay sex by comparing it to your personal experiences having sex with goats. Nevertheless, we feel that it is offensive and moderators are right to continue to mod down your vile messages.

Or did I mean to say that they might down vote you if you just rant and harp about your own point of view without listening anyone. Telling others to "STFU" is not constructive messaging.

I can't remember but do carry on.

Comment Re:The Re-Hate Campaign (Score 1) 1116

2) A segment of the public was in opposition to his cause, and spoke out opposing his viewpoint - fine

You are not being completely honest here. Let's be precise here: They didn't speak out opposing his viewpoint. They spoke out against the person making the point. Not only didn't they try to convince anyone about their views, they singled out one person to be bullied and harassed.

3) A website stopped allowing Mozilla on their site due to being in opposition of his viewpoint - fine

And bullied and harassed they did basically attacking the employee of the said person forcing them to fire him. Nice job.

Bear in mind that these actions that you are fine with are nothing more than actions trying to stifle political discussion by harassing individuals. Giving campaign contributions that target in convincing others about a certain view (even an objectionable view) is different from harassing individuals. The first adds to discussion, the latter removes from it.

The Military

United States Begins Flying Stealth Bombers Over South Korea 567

skade88 writes "The New York Times is reporting that the United States has started flying B-2 stealth bomber runs over South Korea as a show of force to North Korea. The bombers flew 6,500 miles to bomb a South Korean island with mock explosives. Earlier this month the U.S. Military ran mock B-52 bombing runs over the same South Korean island. The U.S. military says it shows that it can execute precision bombing runs at will with little notice needed. The U.S. also reaffirmed their commitment to protecting its allies in the region. The North Koreans have been making threats to turn South Korea into a sea of fire. North Korea has also made threats claiming they will nuke the United States' mainland."

Slashdot Top Deals

An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"